customers__get_customer_by_email

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

Beyond the already-provided readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses that this is a wrapper with no own throttling but consumes the underlying API method's quota, and explicitly recommends caching results in the dialogue. This is concrete operational context that annotations do not cover.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the purpose, the second adds an operational caveat. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple get-by-email tool, the description covers the core purpose and the quota/caching behavior. However, it omits the role of `organization_id` and gives no hint about the return value or error semantics, which matters given the absence of an output schema and zero parameter coverage. It is minimally workable but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters. It clarifies that `email` is the lookup key, but `organization_id` is left completely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, leaving one of two required parameters underdocumented.

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 and resource: 'Получить клиента по email' (Get customer by email). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools that search by phone, ID, card track, or other criteria. The purpose is immediate and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like customers__get_customer_by_phone or customers__get_customer_by_id. It offers caching advice for the tool itself, but that is not selection guidance. The intended usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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