kyt_get_by_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full ou lite' modes, suggesting different levels of data detail, but doesn't explain what these modes entail (e.g., response format, data fields, performance implications). It lacks information on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation/query tool with zero 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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that states the core action and key parameter options. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be more structured by separating usage details. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at modes, but lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, and differentiation from siblings. For a query tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this is a minimal viable description with 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'email' and 'modo full ou lite', which loosely maps to the 'emails' array and 'modo' string parameters, but it doesn't clarify parameter semantics (e.g., email format, what 'full'/'lite' mean, default behavior). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool 'consulta a API KYT por email' (queries the KYT API by email), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what KYT is or what kind of data is returned, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kyt_get_by_document' or 'kyt_get_by_phone' beyond the input parameter difference. The purpose is vague but not tautological.

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 mentions 'em modo full ou lite' (in full or lite mode), which implies there are two usage modes, but it provides no guidance on when to choose one mode over the other, when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kyt_get_by_document', or any prerequisites. There's minimal context but no explicit usage instructions.

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