beel_send_invoice

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, and the description adds useful behavioral details: the default attachment of the PDF and the fallback to customer-configured recipients when no recipient is given. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond sending (e.g., email quota consumption, non-idempotency despite idempotentHint=false, or potential errors like exceeding size limits). The description enriches behavior but leaves gaps that the schema partially fills.

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 two sentences plus an endpoint line, with no superfluous content. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the function. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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?

The description covers the core behavior (sending invoice via email, default PDF attachment, recipient fallback) and provides the endpoint. While it omits details about the request body options and idempotency, the schema is rich enough for an agent to infer them. For a send-action tool with a well-documented schema, the description is adequate, though it could benefit from a note that the body contains optional fields like cc, subject, and language.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description repeats the attach_pdf default and recipient fallback, which are already stated in the schema fields (attach_pdf has default:true, recipients says 'If not specified, uses the customer's email'). It does not add new meaning beyond summarizing existing schema content, so it only meets the baseline expectation.

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 clear action ('Sends the invoice by email'), identifies the resource (invoice), and specifies the default behavior (attaching its PDF). It distinguishes the tool from others by focusing on the email-sending action with the endpoint provided, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as beel_create_invoice_delivery or beel_get_invoice_pdf, nor does it state conditions under which this tool should be avoided. It only implies the use case (sending an invoice by email) without exclusions or comparative context.

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