invoice_issued_get_recipients

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all' conveys a read-only enumeration, but the description does not explain behavior when both id and kod are omitted, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The output schema covers the return shape, which softens this gap.

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 wasted words. 'Get all recipient email addresses for an issued invoice' front-loads the action and resource immediately.

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 getter with fully documented optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit differentiation from adjacent invoice/contact email tools and provides no behavioral context beyond 'get', so an agent may not know when to prefer this over siblings like invoice_issued_get_email or contact_get_notification_email.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for id, kod, and purpose, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters interact, but the schema already provides adequate baseline information.

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 names a specific action ('get') and a specific resource ('all recipient email addresses for an issued invoice'), so it is not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'invoice_issued_get_email', though the word 'recipients' narrows the meaning.

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 phrase 'for an issued invoice' implies this tool is used when recipient email addresses are needed for an issued invoice. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternative sibling or prerequisites such as needing an id or kod.

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