get_vendor_expenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read/report operation, but omits details on rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential performance implications. The description is not contradictory but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the format or content of the report (e.g., whether it returns aggregated totals or individual transactions). The date-range and vendor filtering are implied by parameters but not explicitly stated in the description, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 parameters (all have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining how vendor filtering or date parameters affect the report output.

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 the tool generates a Vendor Expenses report from QuickBooks Online, specifying the resource (Vendor Expenses report) and the verb (Generate). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_vendor_balance or get_profit_and_loss by focusing on expenses by vendor.

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 use for vendor expense reporting but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_vendor_balance, get_aged_payables). No when-not-to-use or context for selection is given.

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