qbo_search_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It explains the status filter semantics (open vs paid) and return structure, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds marginal behavioral context beyond the parameter list.

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 concise with clear sections (Args and Returns). Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It efficiently covers parameters and output structure.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and return envelope. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error handling, but the output schema likely fills some gaps. For a search tool, this is reasonably 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 0%, but the description explains the meaning, format, and defaults for all parameters: ISO dates for date_from/date_to, status optional values, limit cap and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 the tool searches invoices by date range using 'Search invoices created in [date_from, date_to] inclusive.' It clearly identifies the resource (invoices) and action (search). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like qbo_search_bills, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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_get_invoice (single invoice) or qbo_search_bills (bills). There is no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' language.

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