invoices_email_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what data is returned (delivery status, open/click tracking, bounce info, who sent each email), which is good behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination/limits for 'complete history', whether companyId scoping affects results, or what happens for invoices with no sent emails.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the complete history of emails sent for an invoice'), followed by the data scope and use case. Zero filler or redundant content. Very efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose and use case. The data points returned are enumerated, which helps set expectations. Minor gaps around pagination and edge cases (no emails sent) prevent a 5, but the tool's simplicity doesn't demand much more.

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% (both uuid and companyId have descriptions in the schema). The description adds context that the tool returns delivery tracking data but doesn't add detail on either parameter beyond schema. Baseline of 3 applies since schema already documents parameters well; description adds marginal value.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Get the complete history of emails sent for an invoice'. It lists specific content delivered (delivery status, open/click tracking, bounce info, who sent each email) and its use case (audit trails, verifying client receipt). Distinguished from siblings like invoices_email (which sends) and invoices_email_defaults by focusing on history/audit.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read-only audit/history tool, and states it's 'Useful for audit trails and verifying client received the invoice'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose (retrieving history vs sending emails) is clear enough in context of sibling tools like invoices_email. A small gap: no mention of gating requirements like whether the invoice must be sent first.

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