quickbooks_list_refund_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description should describe behavioral aspects. It only states the routing and authentication scope. It does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, authorization requirements, or pagination. This is insufficient.

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 brief and includes routing information, but it omits critical details. It is front-loaded with the purpose but wastes space on routing details that may be generic. It could be more informative in a similar 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 has an output schema but the input parameter is poorly documented. No behavioral traits, error handling, or usage patterns are described. The agent cannot reliably use this tool without additional information.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. The schema provides no details on expected structure, keys, or values. With 0% schema coverage, this description fails to guide the agent on what to provide.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a QuickBooks list operation for refund receipts, but it does not differentiate it from other list tools (e.g., list_credit_memos, list_sales_receipts) which could be confused. The name and description are specific but lack distinctive context.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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