search_attachables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. 'Search' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but there is no mention of result caps, default page size, sort order, or required OAuth scopes for the QuickBooks API. This is a significant gap for an agent that needs to know whether results are complete or truncated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but the sentence itself earns its place without wasted wording.

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 return shape, pagination, and result limits, and it says nothing about any of them. For a search endpoint with a nested params object, this leaves the agent unable to predict what it will get back or how complete it will be.

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 adds 'with optional filters', which hints at filtering semantics but names none of them. The nested 'params' object does document limit, file_name, and content_type individually in the schema, so the schema carries most of the meaning, though the reported top-level coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate by explaining filter combination behavior.

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+resource ('Search for attachables') plus the domain ('in QuickBooks Online') and notes that filters are optional. It is clearly distinct from create_attachable/update_attachable/delete_attachable by the verb, though it never contrasts itself with get_attachable, which also retrieves attachables but by identifier.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the word 'Search'. It does not say to use this when you lack an attachable ID and get_attachable when you have one, nor does it give any query-syntax, pagination, or default-limit guidance. The agent must infer the search-vs-get split from tool names alone.

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