Send Invoice

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it sends by email and allows recipient override, but does not explain side effects (e.g., status change, email failure handling) or retry behavior beyond the idempotent hint.

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 concise, two sentences per language, front-loading the core action. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but acceptable.

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?

With only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main action and a key precondition. It misses the default recipient behavior (client's email) and does not explicitly forbid sending draft or paid invoices.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the override option but adds no further semantic detail beyond what is in the schema.

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 the tool sends an invoice via email with optional recipient override. It distinguishes the action from other invoice tools (e.g., send_einvoice for electronic sending, get_invoice_pdf for downloading) but does not explicitly mention these siblings.

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 provides a precondition: the invoice must exist and not be cancelled. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like send_einvoice or when the invoice is in draft status.

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