Send Sale Invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the 'DESTRUCTIVE' restatement is largely redundant. The added clause 'sends real documents to recipients' does give useful context that the effect is an irreversible outbound dispatch, but nothing is said about failure behavior, retries, or whether both channels can fire at once.

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 short sentences, purpose first, warning second, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a destructive, externally-facing send with no output schema, the description covers purpose and danger but leaves gaps: whether send_email and send_einvoice are mutually exclusive, what email_addresses is required for, and what a failure looks like. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining void is moderate rather than severe.

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 every parameter is already documented. The mention of 'e-invoice or email' loosely maps to send_einvoice/send_email, but it adds no format, default, or combination semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (sales invoice) plus the two delivery channels (e-invoice, email). It distinguishes the tool from read/inspect siblings like get_sale_invoice_document, though it does not explicitly contrast it with confirm_sale_invoice or get_sale_invoice_delivery_options.

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 versus alternatives such as confirm_sale_invoice or the document/XML getters, and no note on prerequisites (e.g. the invoice must already be confirmed). Only the destruction warning is present, which is a caution rather than usage routing.

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