quickbooks_aged_payable_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful detail—'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it'—but it does not disclose potential behavioral nuances such as data scoping, pagination, or response characteristics. The 'approval_ref ... when resuming a write' line is slightly confusing for a read-only tool but does not contradict the annotations.

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 opening sentence states purpose immediately, followed by a compact Args list. Some entries are generic platform boilerplate, but each earns its place by explaining a parameter; the overall size is appropriate for a 10-parameter 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?

The description covers the operation, use case, and every parameter, and an output schema exists to describe return structure. It could be more complete by clarifying whether as_of_date is effectively required for meaningul reports and how start_date/end_date interact with it, but the definition is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the full load for parameter meaning. It provides meaningful explanations for all 10 parameters, including date formats, optionality, project binding, idempotency, and the required read effect. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives an agent enough to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('QuickBooks aged payables report'), and adds the intended use case ('AP aging and vendor cash planning'). The name and description clearly distinguish it from sibling report tools like quickbooks_aged_receivable_report and xero_aged_payable_report.

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 phrase 'for AP aging and vendor cash planning' implies when to use it, and the report type naturally routes agents toward this tool over receivable or other financial reports. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving exclusions to inference.

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