delivery_notes_email_defaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It's a read-only operation (fetching pre-filled content), which is implicitly clear. However, it doesn't disclose specifics like whether it mutates anything, whether template substitution depends on company config, or what side effects (if any) occur. For a seemingly harmless getter, moderate transparency is adequate, but it could state more about config dependence.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that packs the full purpose — get pre-filled email content with recipient, subject, body, and template variables substituted. Zero waste, all relevant information front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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 read-only default-fetch tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what's returned (recipient, subject, body) and the substitution behavior. Given the low complexity of this tool (2 simple parameters, no output schema), this adequately covers the usage scenario. Could mention it's a read-only preview, but the context is fairly well handled.

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 (uuid of delivery note, companyId for overriding default). The description adds context that companyId overrides the 'configured default,' which maps conceptually to the 'default recipient' in the description. This provides meaningful added understanding beyond the bare 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 gets pre-filled email content (recipient, subject, body) with template variables already substituted for a delivery note. The verb 'Get' plus specific resource (delivery note email defaults) is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from delivery_notes_email or delivery_notes_email_history siblings, though the name and description make the distinct purpose reasonably evident.

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 this is a preview/default-fetch tool, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. delivery_notes_email (sending) or delivery_notes_email_history (prior emails). No explicit when/when-not guidance against alternatives is given. The 'pre-filled' language implies it precedes sending, but this is only implied, not stated.

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