qbo_payroll_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the dry-run nature, the side effect of writing files, the default behavior ('Confirm-screen defaults ON'), and the critical safety guarantee ('Never submits payroll'). This is strong transparency for a payroll-related tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical safety and default info. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is concise yet covers the essential behavior, safety, default settings, and output artifacts. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'write' parameter with its default and description. The tool description adds context about writing markdown/html but does not directly explain the parameter's effect beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'write') and names the resource (dry-run payroll preview totals, markdown/html). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it never submits payroll, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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 use case (dry-run preview before actual submission) and states a key exclusion ('Never submits payroll'), but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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