quickbooks_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: 'No tokens are returned' and 'masked realm id' indicate sensitive data is protected, and 'local operation' suggests no side effects. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds essential safety information. Every part is useful and no words are wasted.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the return values, the read-only nature, and the lack of token exposure. There are no gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 per rubric. There is nothing to clarify about parameter semantics, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema documentation gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('QuickBooks Online connection status'), and enumerates the exact return values (connected state, masked realm id, environment, last error). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quickbooks_disconnect or quickbooks_sync_to_qbo.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (to check QBO connection status) and notes it is read-only/local, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the obvious purpose and sibling names, this is clear context without exclusions.

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