customers_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about the return payload, error handling for non-existent customer IDs, how far back 'historial' goes, or whether pagination applies. The description does not contradict anything, but it also adds no information beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

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?

One short, well-constructed Spanish sentence that is fully front-loaded and free of fluff. It is so terse, though, that it conspicuously misses the chance to add a short usage note without hurting the already excellent signal-to-noise ratio.

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?

Given the total absence of annotations and output schema, plus two undocumented parameters, the description is clearly underspecified for a 'detail/history' endpoint that might return voluminous data. An agent cannot tell what invoking it will yield or what effect dry_run has, so the information needed for correct invocation is incomplete.

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 coverage is only 33% with customer_id alone documented as 'Customer UUID'; the purpose of 'fields' and 'dry_run' is unexplained in both schema and description. With coverage this low, the description should compensate, but it says nothing about any parameter.

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 'Detalle e historial de un cliente' implies a specific fetch operation on a single customer resource, and the qualifier 'e historial' (and history) narrows the meaning beyond a plain synonym of the tool name. It differentiates at least implicitly from obvious siblings like customers_list, customers_orders, customers_metrics and customers_detail, since 'detail + history' reads as a fuller per-customer view. It loses one point because the description never explains what 'historial' actually covers (orders, interactions, financial movements, etc.), leaving real ambiguity against its 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 guidance whatsoever about when to use customers_detail against the very close siblings customers_list, customers_orders or customers_metrics. No explicit or implicit mention of alternatives, conditions or exclusions appears in the description.

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