List QuickBooks Accounts

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying what data is returned (Id, Name, AccountType, CurrentBalance) and the response format options, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations covering safety, and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It specifies return fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema, but could improve by mentioning pagination or error handling for a more comprehensive view.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (including enums, defaults, and descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the return fields, which doesn't directly relate to parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 verb ('List') and resource ('chart of accounts from QuickBooks Online'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like qbo_list_customers or qbo_list_invoices by specifying it deals with accounts rather than other QuickBooks entities.

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 implies usage through the mention of filtering by account_type and output format options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools like qbo_profit_loss_report for financial data.

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