invoice_issued_get_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the result semantics and does not explain how 'best' is determined, what happens if no recipient email exists, whether id or kod takes precedence, or any error behavior. It adds little beyond the tool's purpose.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and result, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable for calling the tool. However, it omits the meaning of 'best', parameter precedence, and any fallback or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it robustly.

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%, with both id and kod documented as 'Invoice ID' and 'Invoice code (alternative to id)' respectively. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance about parameter selection, precedence, or mutual exclusivity, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the best recipient email address for an issued invoice.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from the sibling invoice_issued_get_recipients, which likely returns all recipients rather than a single best email. The word 'best' is somewhat vague but the overall purpose is clear.

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 such as invoice_issued_get_recipients or contact_get_notification_email. The phrase 'for an issued invoice' provides some scope, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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