get_vendor_credit

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only single-record fetch but says nothing about behavior when the ID is invalid or not found, permission/scope requirements, or the shape of the returned record.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no wasted wording. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than bloat, but structurally it is clean.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate: the agent knows it fetches a vendor credit by ID. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned object and failure modes than it does.

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 only parameter is a nested 'params.id' with an inline schema description ('Vendor Credit ID') and 0% reported description coverage at the top level. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no ID format, prefix, or example — and the nested object permits arbitrary additional properties that the description never explains.

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 ('Get a vendor credit') scoped by 'by ID', which distinguishes it from the sibling search_vendor_credits. It adds the QuickBooks Online system context, though it doesn't name the search sibling explicitly the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_vendor_credits for agents that don't already have an ID. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'by ID', which implies an ID prerequisite but never states it.

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