supabase_get_user_by_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It omits critical details such as what happens if the email is not found, whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or the structure of the returned user object.

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 brief at one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that does not add semantic value for the agent. The core message is front-loaded but could be cleaner without the tag.

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?

Given the combination of zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks necessary details about parameter formats, return values, and error cases required to confidently invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to adequately do so. While it implicitly references the 'email' parameter ('email address'), it provides no explanation for the 'site' parameter (e.g., whether it expects a project reference, URL, or identifier), leaving half the required inputs undocumented.

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), resource (user), and lookup method (by their email address). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'supabase_get_user' (likely lookup by ID) or 'supabase_search_users' (broad search), leaving ambiguity about which identifier to use when.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'supabase_get_user' or 'supabase_search_users'. There are no prerequisites, error handling notes, or success conditions mentioned.

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