report_customer_income

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the report is a read-only computation, how large results behave, or what the response contains. 'Run a report' weakly implies read-only, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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 compact sentences with the report identity front-loaded and no filler wording. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a feature list rather than information an agent could not already get from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn what a 'Income by Customer Summary' row contains (per-customer income totals, columns shaped by summarize_column_by). That gap is significant for a report tool whose whole purpose is producing structured output, and nothing about return shape is stated.

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 description only paraphrases the categories already present in the nested schema ('date range, accounting method, summarization, and filters') and adds no syntax, defaults, or exclusivity rules. The nested properties themselves are well documented (date_macro's enumerated values and its 'use this OR start_date/end_date, not both' rule, accounting_method's fallback to company Preferences), but the description does not reinforce or clarify any of that, and the top-level 'params' wrapper is 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 names a specific verb ('Run') and a specific QuickBooks report ('Income by Customer Summary'), which is far better than a tautology. It does not distinguish the tool from near siblings such as report_customer_sales or report_customer_balance, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 second sentence lists capability categories (date range, accounting method, summarization, filters) but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternative customer-related reports. The agent knows what the tool can accept but not when it should be chosen over a sibling.

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