search_credit_memos

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost nothing. It implies a read-only operation but never says so, and does not disclose default or maximum result counts, whether an empty filter returns everything, or what the response contains.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity — the sentence is too terse to do the job for a nested-parameter search tool.

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 tool with a nested filter object, an open additionalProperties schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain accepted filters, defaults, and return shape. It covers none of these, leaving the agent with only a one-line restatement of the title.

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 single top-level 'params' object is required and its schema leaves additionalProperties open, so the schema alone does not constrain what filters are legal. The nested properties (limit, txn_date_from/to, customer_ref) do carry inline descriptions, which partially offsets the reported 0% coverage, but the description adds no meaning of its own about accepted filter keys or their semantics.

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 (Search) and resource (credit memos) scoped to QuickBooks Online, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as get_credit_memo, search_vendor_credits, or search_refund_receipts, leaving the agent to infer that this is the multi-record filtered lookup.

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 when-to-use guidance: no mention of when to search instead of calling get_credit_memo with a known ID, no note on filter combinations, and no hint about result limits or pagination behavior. The agent must guess the intended retrieval pattern entirely.

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