quickbooks_list_entities

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

The description states 'Read-only or local operation' and 'Returns the QBO rows as-is (no tokens)' which adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It clarifies that no transformation or tokenization occurs, aligning with the sibling quickbooks_export_to_edi tool but explicitly distinguishing this tool from such transformations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, full schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. It explains what is returned, the entity options, and the read-only/local nature, making it complete for an agent 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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both limit and entity, including enum values. The description's mention of entity types is redundant with the schema, and it adds no extra semantics for the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists QuickBooks entities and enumerates the specific entity types (Invoice, PurchaseOrder, Customer, Vendor, Item). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_transaction by focusing on entities for preview/mapping.

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 preview/mapping' provides a clear use case, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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