receipts_email_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals what data is returned (status, timestamps, recipient information), which offers useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (no mutation warning needed) or any pagination/limits on the history returned.

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, complete sentence that delivers the purpose and the key returned fields with zero 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?

For a read-only history-retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the core purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the description must carry what the response looks like — it lists the fields (status, timestamps, recipient) but doesn't mention pagination or ordering, and lacks any exclusionary guidance versus sibling email-history tools (invoices_email_history, delivery_notes_email_history).

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('UUID of the receipt' and 'Company UUID (overrides configured default)'). The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 email sending history for a receipt, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('email sending history'). It distinguishes from its sibling candidates like receipts_email, receipts_email_defaults, invoices_email_history, and delivery_notes_email_history by specifying 'for a receipt' and listing the data returned.

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 the tool to call when you need a receipt's email history (as opposed to receipts_list, receipts_get, receipts_email). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like invoices_email_history for invoice email history. The context is reasonably inferable but not explicit.

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