search_sales_receipts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, result caps, pagination, or the shape of the response. Only the word 'search' weakly implies a non-mutating query.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity comes from omission rather than economy — there is no second sentence of useful substance to justify the minimal length.

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?

The tool takes a nested params object, has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn behavior. One bare sentence is inadequate for that complexity, leaving pagination, filtering scope, and return shape entirely undocumented.

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 description coverage is reported as 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not explain that the single required 'params' object wraps limit, txn_date_from/to, and customer_ref, nor clarify date formats or filter combination behavior for a nested-object input.

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 sentence names a verb (search) and a resource (sales receipts) in QuickBooks Online, so the general purpose is inferable. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a product qualifier and gives no scope detail (what is searchable, what filters exist), so it does nothing to separate it from siblings like search_refund_receipts or get_sales_receipt.

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 at all: nothing says to use this rather than get_sales_receipt for a single record, search_refund_receipts for related documents, or report_customer_sales for aggregates. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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