get_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at session context via 'signed-in'. It says nothing about required authentication state, what happens if the session is absent or expired (relevant given iec_login/iec_session_status siblings), or whether any data is cached or mutated. The safety profile is effectively undeclared.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key scoping qualifier ('signed-in') is front-loaded before the returned fields. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields (BP number, accounts, name, contact details). Its remaining gap is behavioral: no statement about the required signed-in session or failure behavior when unauthenticated. For a zero-arg read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100%, and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the tool is argument-free and scoped implicitly to the caller.

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 names the specific resource (the signed-in IEC customer) and enumerates its content (BP number, accounts, name, contact details), so an agent knows this is a profile lookup rather than a contract/invoice/meter lookup. The verb is only implied by the name 'get_customer', and it never explicitly says 'returns' or 'reads'. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_contracts, list_meters, or the session tools. 'Signed-in' weakly implies a session prerequisite, but no precondition, alternative, or exclusion is stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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