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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return information ('Returns the saved record with its SyncToken'), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Two short sentences, both of which earn their place: one for purpose, one for return value. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the full parameter schema coverage and existing annotations, the description is nearly complete for a create tool: it states the action and the return shape. It does not mention alternatives or common preconditions, but those gaps are modest given that the schema itself carries detailed entity guidance and the annotations cover safety.

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 input schema already documents both parameters in detail, including the complex entity object and the company parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is full.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a purchase order in QuickBooks Online.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from most siblings by its resource name alone, though it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like create_purchase or create_bill.

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 versus alternatives such as create_purchase, create_bill, or create_purchase (expense). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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