receipts_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses it sends a PDF and supports custom subject, body, CC, BCC. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether a history record is created, whether it changes receipt status, or email delivery failure behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists supported customizations. It's efficient with no wasted words. Could arguably be more informative given its brevity, but it earns its place.

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 an email-sending tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and customizations but omits context around how receipts are tracked after sending (history), whether sending marks the receipt as issued/emailed, or what errors occur. With siblings like receipts_email_defaults and receipts_email_history present, more context about the sending lifecycle would help.

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%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal context by explaining that subject/body auto-generate if omitted (which the schema also mentions) and that companyId overrides the configured default. But it doesn't explain the uuid parameter relationship beyond schema coverage, and text explaining the purpose of templateId (category: receipt) is only in 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 'Send a receipt (bon fiscal) to a customer via email with the PDF attached.' It uses a specific verb+resource (send receipt via email) and mentions the PDF attachment detail. It doesn't strongly distinguish from siblings like invoices_email or receipts_email_defaults, but the core purpose is clear.

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 usage for emailing receipts but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. There's no mention that receipts_email_defaults or receipts_email_history exist or when this should be preferred over those. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites.

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