client_statement_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains dry-run semantics, skip reasons, permission requirements, plan limits, `stoppedReason`, and the fact that no email is sent in dry-run mode. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, subject, targeting modes, dry-run safety, permissions, and bulk limits are all covered. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately orients the agent.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is sent, to whom, how to preview, what can cause skips, and what stops the bulk send. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret key behavior.

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?

The schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: `to` must be an address of one of your clients, `uuid` omission triggers a bulk send, `minBalance` interacts with the bulk filter, and `dryRun` returns recipients/skips. This adds meaningful relational context 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 ('E-mail') and a specific resource: the statement of unpaid invoices with PDF attached. It also names the email subject line and clearly distinguishes the bulk vs single-client behavior, making it easy to differentiate from sibling statement tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to pass `uuid` vs omit it, when to use `to`, and instructs to use `dryRun: true` first. It also states the permission and plan requirements, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as `client_statement` for non-email retrieval.

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