receipts_email_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload contains per-email status, timestamps and recipients, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or caps on history length.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and the returned data, with no filler or 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the main response fields. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only ordering/pagination notes are missing.

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% for both parameters (uuid, companyId), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that the history is scoped 'for a receipt' and adds no detail on the companyId override behavior.

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?

Clear verb+resource: reads the email sending history for a specific receipt. The description also enumerates the returned fields (status, timestamps, recipients), which distinguishes it from receipts_email (which sends) by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'History' implies a read-after-send lookup, so an agent can infer when to use it, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never points to receipts_email (send) or delivery_notes_email_history / invoices_email_history as the analogous tools for other document types.

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