merit_email_sales_invoice

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately states the side effect (sends an email) and the endpoint, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., customer email address, invoice state) or subsequent effects (e.g., marking the invoice as sent). The behavior is clear enough for a simple send action, but depth is limited.

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?

Two compact sentences with the most important information front-loaded ('SENDS EMAIL'). The endpoint and parameter usage are included without redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter send action, the description covers the mechanics and both parameters. However, without an output schema or annotations it omits the expected response/status and any preconditions, and it does not explain how this tool relates to the e-invoice sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: id has 'Invoice GUID / SIHId (required)' and delivNote has 'If true, send a delivery note without prices'. The description essentially restates these, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents both parameters.

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 identifies the action (emailing) and the resource (Merit Aktiva sales invoice) plus the recipient (customer), and names the underlying endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sales_invoice or send_sales_invoice_einvoice.

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 the tool's use — after obtaining an invoice id, email it to the customer — but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as merit_send_sales_invoice_einvoice or merit_get_sales_invoice_pdf. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer selection from the verb 'email'.

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