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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description carries a lighter burden. It adds no return-shape, not-found behavior, or permission context beyond the annotation baseline, so it is merely adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the key action and lookup key come first. The trailing routing clause is slightly cryptic but short enough to earn its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. It lacks a named fallback sibling and any not-found guidance, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 both id and company are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'by Id' and adds no format, sourcing, or company-selection nuance beyond the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (a single account) scoped by Id from QuickBooks Online, which distinguishes it from the plural get_account_list. It does not explicitly name search_accounts or the other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'when no search or write answer already holds it' implies a preference ordering (try search/write paths first), which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never names the alternatives (search_accounts, get_account_list) or states an explicit when-not condition, leaving the agent to infer.

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