qbo_search_bills

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('JSON envelope. data.bills'), inclusive date range, optional status filter, and limit cap. This is fairly transparent for a search tool.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but a bit verbose (7 lines). It is efficient enough and front-loads key information.

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?

Output schema exists, so description needn't detail return values, but it does mention the envelope. It covers all parameters and their constraints. Missing explicit error handling or pagination, but adequate for a simple search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. It explains date_from and date_to as ISO dates with inclusive window, status options (open/paid/null), and limit range (1-2000, default 200), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches vendor bills with a date range, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like qbo_search_invoices by focusing on bills.

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 explains when to use the tool (search bills by date range) and provides details on the status filter. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context from sibling tools is clear enough.

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