search_invoices

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states 'search invoices using criteria' without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, result format, rate limits, or side effects. The description provides minimal 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks important details that would justify its brevity. It is efficiently short but at the cost of completeness and clarity.

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 the complexity of a search tool with a nested 'criteria' parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what the search returns, how to structure criteria, or any usage constraints.

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 50% (company described, params not). The description adds no meaning beyond 'using criteria' and does not explain the structure or possible values of the criteria parameter. The parameters' semantics remain largely undocumented.

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 searches invoices in QuickBooks Online using criteria, specifying the resource (invoices) and action (search). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on invoices, though it could be improved by contrasting with read_invoice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_invoice or other search_* tools. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.

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