receipts_email

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

Explains the sending behavior, attachment, customization options, and recipient validation rules. With no annotations provided, this description carries the transparency burden and does so sufficiently, though it does not detail every side effect.

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?

Very concise and well-structured. Two sentences convey the core operation, key options, and a critical validation rule without redundancy.

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?

Complete enough for an action-oriented tool with no output schema. It covers the main purpose, main options, and a key failure condition. Could mention the response or interaction with defaults more, but this is not essential.

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 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds useful context about the PDF attachment and the client-email restriction, enriching understanding of recipient parameters 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?

Clearly states the action: send a receipt via email with PDF attached. Also mentions customization features (subject, body, CC, BCC) and distinguishes the tool from related receipt/invoice email operations.

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 an explicit constraint that recipients must be registered client emails and mentions the resulting error. However, it does not compare with sibling tools like receipts_email_defaults or receipts_email_history, so when-to-use guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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