qbo_expenses_list_purchases

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates this is a read operation ('list') and explicitly notes pagination behavior, which is a key trait. However, it does not disclose potential permissions requirements or data freshness, but for a straightforward list tool this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, immediately specifying scope and pagination. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.

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 covers the basic purpose and pagination but omits what the return format looks like (no output schema). It also doesn't clarify ordering or inclusivity of date filters, though those are in the schema. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which is already implied by the params. Baseline score of 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'purchases', specifying that purchases include expenses, checks, and credit card charges. It also mentions pagination, making its function unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like qbo_expenses_list_bills and qbo_expenses_get_purchase.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as qbo_expenses_list_bills or qbo_purchases_list. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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