slam_customers_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns recent orders (up to 10) and metafields, which adds some behavioral context beyond a simple fetch. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether it's read-only/destructive—critical for a tool with no annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns a single customer by ID') and adds useful details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but has gaps. It specifies what's included (orders and metafields), which helps, but doesn't cover response format, error cases, or other behavioral aspects needed for full context without structured fields.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The customer ID (Shopify GID).' The description doesn't add further parameter details beyond implying the ID is required. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantics.

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 specific action ('Returns a single customer by ID') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'slam_customers_list' or 'slam_customers_search' by specifying it fetches a single customer rather than multiple. It also adds valuable detail about what's included ('recent orders up to 10 and metafields'), which goes beyond a basic retrieval.

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 by specifying 'by ID,' suggesting this tool is for fetching a known customer. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'slam_customers_list' for multiple customers or 'slam_customers_search' for unknown IDs, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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