Send invoice

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide: the actual send is performed by Blesta's cron within minutes (asynchronous), and the tool returns a delivery log to view prior sends. These details about timing and return value are not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.). It adds meaningful context that helps the agent predict the tool's non-immediate effect and output, earning a 4.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action (queue delivery) and the method, while the second adds the cron timing and log behavior. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the action, the asynchronous nature (cron), and the return value (delivery log). An agent has all the information needed to call the tool correctly without missing critical details.

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?

Both parameters (invoice_id and method) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters; it mentions 'email or another configured method' which aligns with the method param but adds no new syntax or constraints. It also notes the return of a delivery log, but that's not parameter-related. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 queues delivery of an invoice to a client via email or other methods, naming the wrapped API (Invoices.addDelivery). It specifies the exact resource (invoice) and action (queue/re-deliver), making the purpose unambiguous. While no sibling tool performs the same function, the verb+resource combination is precise and distinct.

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 implies usage by stating it sends invoices, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or what scenarios would favor another tool, though the absence of a sibling 'send' tool makes the implicit guidance sufficient. Still, explicit alternative guidance is missing, so the score is a 3.

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