get_debt_by_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds a useful behavioral fact: debt is returned across all personal accounts associated with the email, implying a read-only lookup. But it does not disclose error behavior, empty results, authorization, or what specifically is returned.

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 sentence with no filler and the key scope ('всем лицевым счетам') front-loaded. It is concise but perhaps too sparse to compensate for missing usage and output details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the result is (debt amount? list of debts?) and edge-case behavior. It leaves these to inference, making it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that email is the account-linking identifier, but it does not specify format, normalization, or behavior for unknown emails. The single parameter is self-descriptive, so this is adequate, not more.

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 the resource ('debt') and the addressing key ('email'), adding a scope detail: aggregate debt across all personal accounts tied to that email. This differentiates it from get_debt_by_phone, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase.

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?

No guidance says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_debt_by_phone or get_contragent_debt. The use case is only implied by the email parameter and tool name.

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