quickbooks_get_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only, but provides no details on required permissions, side effects, or how to specify the invoice (e.g., which ID is needed). The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the second sentence about routing through '/api/tools/invoke' may be unnecessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 lacks critical context on how to use the 'arguments' parameter to specify which invoice to retrieve. Given the output schema exists, the return values are handled separately, but the input usage is under-specified, making the tool difficult to invoke 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'arguments' (JSON string) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful guidance on required keys (e.g., InvoiceId). This fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 name and description clearly indicate this tool retrieves an invoice from QuickBooks ('get_invoice'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like quickbooks_list_invoices, which also retrieves invoices but in a list. The lack of differentiation prevents a score of 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer get_invoice over list_invoices or other get tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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