delivery_notes_email_history

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

No annotations are provided for this tool, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. This is a read operation (get history), which is inferable from the description. However, it does not disclose behavior details such as whether the email history is paginated, ordered by timestamp, what happens when there are no emails, or any permissions required. For a read-only history tool the behavioral surface is relatively small, so the lack of additional disclosure is a moderate gap rather than critical.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the action, the resource, and the fields returned (status, timestamps, recipient information). There is no waste or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could arguably add a bit more behavioral context, but for what it includes, it is 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 read-only history retrieval tool with 2 well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the resource (delivery note), the scope (email sending history), and the data fields returned. The tool's complexity is low—no nested objects, no enums—so the description covers the essential context. A minor gap is the absence of guidance on ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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 both parameters (uuid = UUID of delivery note, companyId = company UUID overriding configured default) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'uuid' refers to the delivery note being queried. The description adds the contextual meaning that history is scoped to a single delivery note, reinforcing the parameter's role. Given the full schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies; the description provides slight additional context connecting the parameter to the history query, warranting a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('email sending history for a delivery note'), with the scope being 'all sent emails with their status, timestamps, and recipient information.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delivery_notes_email (which sends) and delivery_notes_email_defaults (which manages defaults). The purpose is clear and specific.

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 the tool to use when wanting to review sent email history for a delivery note, which is reasonably inferable from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., no emails sent yet, requires the delivery note to exist/be issued). It also doesn't distinguish from the analogous receipts_email_history or invoices_email_history beyond the naming.

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