qbo_list_employees

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action 'List'. It does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, mention output format, or note any error conditions (e.g., missing connection). While 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, the lack of explicit disclosure leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, and the additional parenthetical about fixture names is relevant context. This is appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple parameterless list tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits prerequisites (authentication/connection setup) and any details about the response. The mention of 'prove path' is ambiguous without further explanation, and the tool's behavior in error cases is unaddressed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema or description burden to explain parameter meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description correctly reflects the parameterless nature without adding unnecessary detail.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'employees', making the primary action unambiguous. It also names the specific context ('connected company') and test fixture ('Acme Bookkeeping'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like qbo_update_employee_salary or qbo_oauth.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies a prerequisite ('connected company') but does not mention that OAuth may be required first, nor does it contrast with other listing/reading tools.

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