Get Customer

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is the primary safety signal. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior (e.g., 404 for non-existent ID), or authentication requirements. The docs link is referenced but not expanded upon.

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 sentence containing the essential information: what it does and the identifying parameter. It includes a documentation link for further reading without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names the action and the key. It could be improved by noting the return type (e.g., 'Returns full customer object') or error handling, but the simplicity of the operation reduces the need. The docs link compensates for missing details.

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 provides 100% coverage with customer_id described as 'Housecall Pro customer ID.' The description adds no additional parameter context. According to the baseline, since schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate without needing description compensation.

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 'Get a single customer by ID' uses a specific verb (get), resource (customer), and scope (single by ID), clearly distinguishing it from list_customers (which retrieves multiple) and create/update_customer (which modify). This matches the high standard of specificity.

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?

The description implies usage when a specific customer_id is known, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_customers for searching or create_customer for adding. The phrase 'by ID' hints at the prerequisite, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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