vtex_get_client_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. 'Get client data' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the email isn't found (error vs. empty response), rate limits, or the format/structure of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information (get client data by email). Every word 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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (especially given no annotations), usage guidance relative to siblings, and details about the returned data. The high schema coverage helps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 description mentions 'by email' which aligns with the single 'email' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents 'email' as 'Client email'), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get client data by email' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('client data'), with the specific lookup method ('by email') providing reasonable specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'vtex_get_client_by_id' (if such existed) or explain what 'client data' encompasses compared to other get tools in the sibling list.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like vtex_get_order, vtex_get_product, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is the primary way to retrieve client information or if other methods exist. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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