Send invoice reminder

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses a write-gating prerequisite (ALLOW_WRITES=true) and a server-side validation step before sending. It does not mention rate limits or exact failure behavior, but it meaningfully clarifies safety and preconditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical constraints. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the core purpose, write gate, and validation. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around the invoice_id semantics and precise error outcomes.

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 schema has zero description coverage for invoice_id, and the description never explains the parameter itself, its expected format, or how it relates to the open/overdue validation. The single parameter is obvious, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-sends an overdue invoice email ... through Stripe.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_overdue_invoices and receivables_summary.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the invoice must still be open and overdue, and the server must have ALLOW_WRITES=true. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, but the preconditions are strong enough to guide correct use.

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