qbo_bills_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully convey behavior. It only states the search functionality but does not disclose that it returns multiple records, supports pagination, or is read-only. The agent is left to infer the response structure.

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 efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It could be slightly more informative about return type or pagination, but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify that the tool returns a list of bills, what the LIKE matching entails beyond DocNumber, or any pagination limits. The agent lacks critical context for reliable use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the schema's content. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (bills), the action (search), and the specific field (DocNumber) with the match type (LIKE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbo_bills_list (list all) and qbo_bills_get (get by ID).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as qbo_bills_list for fetching all bills or qbo_bills_get for exact ID lookup. It does not mention that the search is limited to DocNumber only.

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