get_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'getting', which hints at a read operation, but does not mention possible side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when multiple identifiers are provided. The bare action leaves significant behavior undocumented.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and keys without any filler. It is concise and easy to scan.

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 retrieval tool with moderate parameter count and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits practical details such as whether at least one identifier is required, how identifiers combine, or expected response format. The schema fills in some gaps (e.g., operation matching), but the description provides no extra context beyond the basic action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (email, phone, operation, external_id) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond naming the identifiers, and it does not clarify precedence, mutual exclusivity, or the requirement to match the operation name to project configuration (though the schema does state that). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'customer profile from Mindbox', and explicitly mentions the search keys (email, phone, ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_segments or get_product_list, which target different resources.

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 the tool is used to retrieve customer data by one of the listed identifiers, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use get_segments for segments, not customers'). No exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between tools are included.

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