Get customer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations and the verb 'fetches' imply—no mention of 404 behavior, return format, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the burden, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, earning full marks for brevity. However, it lacks structural depth—no front-loading of key details beyond the core action. It is efficient but under-specified, so it does not reach a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch operation with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, it omits usage guidance (when to use vs. list_customers), return expectations, and any error handling, leaving the agent with some uncertainty. Given the low complexity, a 3 reflects that it is functional but could be richer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (customerId) with a basic description 'Path parameter customerId'. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter—it does not explain that the ID must correspond to an existing customer or that it is the unique identifier. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description contributes no additional meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Fetches one customer' uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bokio_list_customers which fetch multiple customers. It is concise and unambiguous, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used when a single customer ID is known, nor does it reference the sibling list tool as a fallback for multiple customers. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.