receipts_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 states this is a read-only get operation that returns pre-filled content, which is good, but it doesn't disclose details like whether the default recipient comes from the company config, whether substitutions can fail, or what happens when the uuid is invalid. Has no output schema to compensate for missing return-type documentation.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently captures the purpose and key output content. It's concise without being under-specified; the sentence is front-loaded with the active verb 'Get' and specifies the resource. Could arguably include usage guidance but the sentence itself is well-paced.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only retrieval tool with only 2 parameters, both schema-documented. Given its simplicity, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it doesn't mention return format, which matters since there's no output schema, and an agent can't know what keys to expect (recipient, subject, body). Also could clarify the relationship to receipts_email for sending context.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema (uuid as receipt identifier, companyId as override). The description adds the concept of 'template variables already substituted' but doesn't explain how the two params interact beyond what schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 it retrieves pre-filled email content for a receipt, including recipient, subject, and body with template variables substituted. It distinguishes from the sibling receipts_email (which sends) and receipts_email_history, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those.

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 for retrieving default email content before possibly sending via receipts_email, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives. The context of 'receipts_email_defaults' alongside 'receipts_email' and 'receipts_email_history' makes the intent somewhat clear but no explicit guidance is given.

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