describe_schema

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call costs no API call and details both invocation modes (overview vs. entity-specific fields). Although it does not explicitly state read-only, the cost disclosure and behavior description provide strong transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary line, a usage directive, behavior details, cost note, and an args section. Every sentence provides necessary information with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers invocation modes, cost, and the nature of the returned data. The output schema handles return format details, so nothing essential is 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?

Even though the schema coverage metric is 0%, the description includes an Args section explaining the 'entity' parameter with concrete examples ('Invoice', 'Customer') and instructs to omit it for the overview. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple default null.

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 that the tool identifies which QuickBooks entities and fields can be queried and explains dialect rules. It differs from the sibling query tools by being a preparatory metadata tool, and explicitly instructs to call it before run_query.

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 provides explicit context: 'Call this before writing a run_query statement.' It also describes behavior with and without an argument. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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