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

Even though destructiveHint=true already signals destructiveness, the description adds valuable behavioral context: creating a tax agency cannot be undone and automatically creates payable and suspense accounts that can never be deleted. It also warns against sending government identifiers, birth dates, and card-processing details, which is critical safety information beyond the annotation.

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 main description is a single efficient sentence, and the parameter descriptions pack important warnings into a compact, front-loaded structure. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 definition covers the irreversible consequences, sensitive data exclusions, and the one required complex object. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the safety-critical context is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool responsibly.

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 thoroughly, including the entity object shape and the optional company field. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a tax agency in QuickBooks Online.' It is clear and unambiguous about the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_tax_service, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name.

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 only usage guidance is buried in the entity parameter: 'Only create one when the user has asked for it.' This implies the tool should not be used casually, but there is no explicit mention of when to prefer search_tax_agencies/get_tax_agency or how to distinguish this from create_tax_service.

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