List QuickBooks Bills

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

Annotations already provide strong hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format options ('markdown' or 'json') and listing the fields in the output (e.g., Id, VendorRef, TxnDate), which are not covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'List' aligns with read-only behavior.

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 appropriately sized and structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the Args section could be more integrated into the main text rather than listed separately, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters (via schema), and return fields, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits. With annotations providing safety context, it's sufficient for a list operation, but could benefit from more behavioral context like pagination limits or data freshness.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., limit, offset, status with enum values). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning pagination and filtering in the Args section without new details. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the primary burden.

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 action ('List') and resource ('bills/payables from QuickBooks Online'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like qbo_list_invoices and qbo_list_vendors by focusing on bills/payables, which are distinct financial entities in accounting systems.

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 options (vendor_id, status) and pagination, suggesting it's for retrieving bill data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qbo_list_invoices or qbo_profit_loss_report, which might also involve financial data retrieval. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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