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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns by stating 'create'. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of side effects, required permissions, or what happens on creation. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no extra value beyond the annotation fields.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks any structuring or front-loading of key info. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it provides minimal value.

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 create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what the return value will be (likely the created customer object), any constraints on the entity, or how to select the company. The schema covers parameters, but the description provides no additional context that would help an agent call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (entity and company) in detail. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 (create) and resource (customer) with the context 'in QuickBooks Online'. It is distinct from other create_* tools because the resource is customer, and it is not a tautology since it adds context. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like update_customer or search_customers, but that's not required for this dimension.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when to use update_customer instead, or any conditions. The description is solely a statement of purpose, providing zero direction for tool selection.

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