Get customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieval action and does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, precedence when both parameters are provided, or what happens if neither is provided. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource and identifiers. There is no wasted wording, making it exceptionally 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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimal. It explains how to identify the customer but does not elaborate on what 'full record' includes, behavior with missing or conflicting parameters, or return format. For a simple get tool it is adequate but leaves several contextual gaps.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions ('Customer GUID id' and 'Customer No., e.g. C00120'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds the 'or' relationship between the two parameters but does not clarify whether at least one is required or what happens if both are supplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('one customer's full record'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like bc_list_customers by emphasizing 'one' customer. The identifiers (customer number and GUID id) are explicitly mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving a single customer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bc_list_customers or bc_query. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied rather than explicitly guided.

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