qbo_vendor_credits_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it lists with pagination and date filtering, omitting details like whether all records are returned by default, any sorting, response format, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Ideal conciseness for a list tool.

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 covers the basic purpose and feature set (pagination, date range) but does not explain the response format or any defaults beyond what the schema provides. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate 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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing that parameters support pagination and date range. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional value is provided.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('VendorCredit records'), and the context ('in QuickBooks Online'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like qbo_accounts_list or qbo_bills_list, though the tool name already provides that distinction.

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 indicates pagination and optional date range, which suggests when to use the tool for listing with those features. But it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention any alternatives, such as a dedicated search tool for vendor credits (which does not exist among siblings).

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