get-customer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and the required auth scope (customers:read), which helps an agent understand access requirements. It does not describe response format or error cases, but those are less critical given the annotation.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds endpoint and scope details. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and a clear endpoint, the description is nearly complete. It could additionally mention what the tool returns or how it handles not-found cases, but the absent output schema and simple signature make this a minor gap.

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 documents the id parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing that id is a path parameter in the endpoint template, which clarifies how the parameter should be supplied.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a customer'), and gives the exact endpoint pattern (GET /api/public/customers/{id}). This clearly distinguishes the tool from list-customers and other customer-related tools.

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 singular 'a customer' plus the {id} path param implies this tool is for fetching one customer by ID, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list-customers or how it differs from other get-* tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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