List QuickBooks Customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies the return format options (markdown/json) and details about pagination (limit/offset), which are not captured in annotations, enhancing behavioral understanding.

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 clear sections (purpose, returns, args, returns details) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of schema details. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential info.

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 (list operation with filtering/pagination), annotations provide good safety coverage, and the description adds context like return format and data fields. However, without an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields, though it could better explain response structure or error handling.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter info (e.g., limit, offset, active_only, search, response_format) without adding significant meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as usage examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all customers') and resource ('from QuickBooks Online'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like qbo_list_invoices or qbo_list_vendors. It explicitly mentions what data is returned, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 for retrieving customer data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qbo_list_vendors or qbo_list_accounts. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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