Get user by mail json

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of the lookup: no mention of what happens when the email is unknown, whether an admin token is required, or what record shape 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With four params at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a large sibling set of similarly named user-lookup tools, six words cannot adequately prepare an agent to call this correctly. At minimum the undocumented form/params/json_body parameters or the return shape should be addressed.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only clarifies 'mail' as an email-based lookup. The three other parameters (form, params, json_body) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess at their purpose.

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 gives a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('user'), and lookup key ('by email'), which distinguishes it in principle from siblings like vaultwarden_get_user_json or vaultwarden_get_users_json that query by other means. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus vaultwarden_get_user, vaultwarden_get_user_json, or vaultwarden_get_users_json, and no prerequisites such as admin scope are mentioned. The only usage signal is the phrase 'by email', which implies the caller must already have an email address.

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