Send Sale Invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it 'sends real documents to recipients,' reinforcing the destructive nature. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors like idempotency (already false) or prerequisites. With annotations covering the core trait, the description provides marginal extra context.

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 concise sentences: first clearly states purpose, second adds essential behavioral warning. No filler, well front-loaded.

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 tool has no output schema and simple parameters. The description covers the core action and destructive nature. For a low-complexity tool, it is sufficiently complete. Could mention confirmation or resending behavior but not required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description only adds 'via e-invoice or email,' which maps to the boolean params send_einvoice and send_email but doesn't add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Send'), the resource ('sales invoice'), and the methods ('via e-invoice or email'). Among many invoice-related siblings, this tool is uniquely about sending, not creating, confirming, or updating, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explicitly labels the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE — sends real documents to recipients,' providing a strong warning about when not to use it (e.g., for testing). While it does not name specific alternatives, the destructive hint gives clear usage context relative to siblings like confirm_sale_invoice.

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