quickbooks_list_sales_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions the routing path. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects (e.g., does it modify data? What is the return format?).

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 but wastes space on the irrelevant routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') while omitting crucial information about the tool's purpose and usage. It is not concise in a helpful way.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide basic information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what parameters to supply. It is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke it 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it does not specify what fields the JSON should contain (e.g., filters, pagination).

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 'Quickbooks connector operation list_sales_receipts' which is a tautology—it repeats the name without explaining that the tool retrieves a list of sales receipts. It does not differentiate from sibling list tools like quickbooks_list_invoices or quickbooks_list_credit_memos.

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. There is no mention of filters, prerequisites, or comparison to other QuickBooks list operations.

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