qb_list_vendors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the tool as a read operation (lists) but does not mention behavior such as whether it returns all vendors, sorting, or the effect of the 'active_only' parameter. Lacking some behavioral detail but adequate for a simple 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?

Two succinct sentences: first clearly states the function and output fields, second provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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 no annotations and a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks explanation of the 'active_only' parameter and any return value details beyond name and ListID. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more 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%, and the description does not mention the 'active_only' parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The parameter's purpose and effect are completely undocumented in the description.

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 tool lists vendors with specific fields (name, ListID) and distinctively positions it for payee verification before transaction posting, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qb_add_vendor or qb_vendor_history.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to confirm a payee exists exactly before posting a transaction. While it does not exclude other uses or list alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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