customerthermometer_send_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 that it sends an email, which implies a side effect, but it doesn't mention that this likely consumes credits (given the sibling get_credits), that the send is irreversible, or what happens if the recipient isn't on the list. For a mutating action, this is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the core action and scope ('single', 'one recipient'), which is exactly what an agent needs to know first.

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 send action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't mention the side effects (credit consumption), prerequisites (recipient must be in the list), failure conditions (invalid email, nonexistent thermometer), or any return information. An agent has no way to predict the outcome or plan for errors.

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 57%, leaving three parameters (lastName, firstName, companyName) undocumented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify the purpose of optional fields or how they affect the email. It doesn't compensate for the missing schema descriptions or provide examples of valid values.

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 a specific action: 'Send a single Email Thermometer survey to one recipient.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve data (get_thermometers, get_credits) or manage recipients (add_recipient_to_list, unsubscribe_recipient). The verb 'send' plus the resource 'Email Thermometer survey' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the recipient must already exist in the list, that a valid thermometerID is required, or that this consumes credits). It also doesn't state when not to use it, such as for bulk sending or when a blast ID is needed. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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