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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations — that the response includes the saved record with its SyncToken — but says nothing about permission requirements, duplicate handling, or what happens on validation failure.

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, verb-and-resource front-loaded, no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming SyncToken in the return value, and the schema carries rich parameter detail. However, for a mutation tool it omits error/failure behavior and any indication of whether the Term object shape can be validated client-side, leaving a few real gaps.

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%: the entity parameter is documented as a QuickBooks Online API v3 Term object with an explicit prohibition on government identifiers, birth dates and card-processing details, and company is documented with its optional-when-single-company rule. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a term') plus the system context ('in QuickBooks Online'), which cleanly separates it from the get_term/update_term/search_terms siblings operating on the same resource. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other create_* entity tools beyond the noun.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: it never says that update_term should be used for existing terms, that search_terms/get_term exist for lookup, or what prerequisites apply. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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