email_document

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

The annotations only carry openWorldHint=true, so the description must supply the rest. It usefully discloses that sender, recipient, subject and body are pre-filled from the Fatture in Cloud account settings, which is real context beyond the schema, but it does not state that the mail is dispatched immediately and irreversibly, nor what permissions or failure modes apply.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the outbound action is front-loaded ahead of the defaults note. Slightly weaker only because the second sentence reads as a single merged clause rather than a clearly separated behaviour note.

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 single-shot side-effecting send with no output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers what the tool does and where defaults come from, which is close to sufficient. The missing piece is confirmation of immediate dispatch/unrecoverability, which matters for an outbound-email mutation.

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 57%, and the description compensates by signalling that the sender/recipient/subject/body parameters are optional because defaults exist, and that a PDF can be attached. It still adds nothing about the required id, send_copy, company_id, or the comma-separated recipient_email format.

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?

"Invia il documento per email al cliente" states a specific verb (invia) and resource (documento) plus the channel (email) and the fact that link and PDF are included. It is clearly distinct from send_einvoice or list_sent_emails, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for emailing an existing document to a customer, but the description gives no explicit conditions, no prerequisites (e.g. document must exist / be issued), and does not route to bulk_email or send_einvoice for the related cases.

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