users_get_by_email

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 states that the tool 'finds' users, which implies a read operation, but it does not clarify whether it returns a single user or a list, whether the email match is case‑sensitive, or any potential side effects. The mention of 'users stream filter' hints at an underlying mechanism but does not explain its consequences. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool.

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?

While the description is clear about the purpose, it omits critical context such as the return format (single user vs. list), error handling, or any special behaviors like case‑sensitivity. Since there is no output schema to compensate, the agent lacks information about what to expect after the call. For a simple tool this is borderline acceptable, but the absence of any guidance on return data makes it incomplete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the 'email' parameter ('User email'), and the tool description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema states. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description contributes no additional semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'Remnawave users' with the specific attribute 'by their email', distinguishing it from sibling tools that look up by username, UUID, telegram ID, etc. The additional phrase 'via the users stream filter' adds a distinct implementation hint without confusing the core purpose.

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 that this tool is for email-based lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like users_get_by_username or users_get_by_short_uuid. It also lacks any exclusion criteria or guidance on when not to use it. The usage is inferred from the name and the 'by email' phrasing rather than being explicit.

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