List QuickBooks Vendors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format options ('markdown' or 'json') and listing returned fields (Id, DisplayName, Email, Phone, Balance), which are not covered by annotations, enhancing behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds return format and field details, it is complete for a read-only list tool. No output schema is present, but the description adequately explains returns, and the tool's complexity is low with clear parameters.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, such as noting 'active_only' defaults to true and 'response_format' options, but does not significantly enhance understanding. 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 verb 'List' and resource 'vendors/suppliers from QuickBooks Online', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like qbo_list_customers and qbo_list_bills by specifying the vendor resource type, avoiding redundancy.

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 vendor lists, with context from sibling tools suggesting alternatives for other resources (e.g., qbo_list_customers for customers). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others or any exclusions, such as not using it for creating vendors.

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