gc_find_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it finds a user and returns certain fields, which is sufficient for a read-only lookup. It does not mention error conditions or if multiple matches possible, but for a simple search tool this is adequate.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and expected output fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it lacks details on error handling.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the email parameter. The tool description adds value by specifying the output fields, which helps the agent understand what the parameter is used for (search by email and get user details).

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 'find user by email' and lists the output fields (id, name, type, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly for other operations like add, remove, or find for offers/orders.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: when you need to find a user by email. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only find-user-by-email tool.

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