qbo_invoices_list

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 communicates the core read-only behavior ('List') and mentions pagination and filters, but these are already visible in the schema. It doesn't disclose additional traits such as the return format, any rate limits, or whether the operation is safe/non-mutating beyond what the verb implies. This is minimally adequate for a simple list 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'List invoices in QuickBooks Online with pagination and optional filters for status and date range.' It contains zero filler, uses the verb + resource structure immediately, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool has only 5 optional parameters, all fully described in the input schema, no nested objects, and no output schema. Given the low complexity, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It correctly implies the tool returns a list of invoices, which is the expected behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (e.g., status enum, date format, defaults for maxResults and startPosition). It merely summarizes the filter types already present.

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 'invoices in QuickBooks Online', with additional scope 'pagination and optional filters for status and date range'. This distinguishes it from related tools like qbo_invoices_get (which fetches a single invoice) and qbo_invoices_create (which creates invoices).

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 clear context: this tool is for listing invoices with optional filtering and pagination. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like qbo_invoices_get, the verb 'list' makes the intended usage obvious, and no exclusions are needed beyond what the schema already defines.

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