check_vendor_user_email

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

The description includes the HTTP method GET, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose permissions, response format, or error behavior. With no annotations provided, the description only partially covers behavioral disclosure.

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 includes the action and endpoint, with no redundant words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status code), but it only says 'check if exists'. It lacks information about the response and usage context, which is a significant gap for an API 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the email parameter, and the description's mention of '使用者 Email' adds little beyond the schema. The endpoint shows the email is a path parameter, a minor addition, but no deeper semantics like format constraints are provided.

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 action: '檢查使用者 Email 是否存在' (Check if user email exists), with a specific resource (user email) and endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_vendor_tax_number by explicitly focusing on email.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclude cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and action.

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