getCustomerByEmail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states read-only behavior, the HTTP GET method, and a rate limit of 100 requests per minute. It does not explain error handling or pagination, but the provided constraints are useful.

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 compact sentence with the core function first, followed by rate limit and read-only/endpoint context. There is no filler, and every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation: the agent knows what the tool does, which parameter to supply, and that it is read-only with a rate limit. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits response shape, pagination behavior, and error conditions such as a customer not being found.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'email' string in the schema. It does this by showing email as the path parameter in GET /paygate/customers/{email}, which adds meaningful endpoint context beyond the schema. It stops short of describing email format or encoding requirements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a customer's transaction history', with the email path in the endpoint making the scope clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like listTransactions or getTransactionById, but the email-scoped resource is enough to distinguish it.

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?

Implies when to use it: when you need a single customer's transaction history by email. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose, such as listTransactions for broader transaction queries.

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