qb_list_vendors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the verification-before-posting workflow context. However, it says nothing about result size, whether inactive vendors are included, or ordering — relevant given the stated goal of exact existence confirmation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded before the usage note.

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?

An output schema exists and the read-only annotations are present, so return values and safety need no explanation. The remaining gap is the undocumented active_only default, which can cause a false negative in exactly the scenario the description recommends using the tool for.

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?

The single parameter active_only has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. That omission matters: with active_only defaulting to true, a deactivated vendor would silently not appear, defeating the tool's stated purpose of confirming a payee exists.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists vendors) and names the fields returned (name, ListID), so it is clearly distinguishable from qb_add_vendor or qb_vendor_history. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the read/list framing is unambiguous.

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?

'Use this to confirm a payee exists exactly before posting a transaction against it' gives a concrete precondition tied to the write siblings (qb_add_transaction, qb_write_check). No exclusions or alternative lookup tools (e.g., qb_vendor_history, qb_search_customers) are mentioned, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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