search_vendor_credits

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 pagination, default result counts, permission requirements, or what the returned records contain. The only behavioral signal is the implicit read-only nature of "Search", which is far too thin for a query tool over nested parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight authoring. It is well structured but simply too small to carry the tool's meaning.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested params object, the definition leaves the agent guessing about filtering options and return shape. A search tool in a suite this large needs at least a note on supported filters and result limits to be called correctly.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level: the sole parameter "params" is a nested container with no description in either the schema or the description text. The description adds no meaning about filtering semantics, result limits, or how vendor_ref should be formed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ("Search for vendor credits") and names the system (QuickBooks Online), which is enough to separate it from create_vendor_credit, get_vendor_credit, update_vendor_credit and delete_vendor_credit in the sibling list. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or with search_bills, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a payables search.

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 prerequisites or scoping, and no named alternative such as get_vendor_credit for fetching a single known credit. Only the imperative verb "Search" implies the read/query context, so an agent must infer routing entirely from the tool name.

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