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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it explains the return type (CDCResponse) and that records with status: Deleted were removed, clarifying how deletions are represented. It also discloses the 30-day lookback limit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently includes the return format, the deletion status nuance, and the 30-day limit without any fluff. Every sentence earns 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return value as CDCResponse and the meaning of the Deleted status. It also covers the time constraint and entity selection. While it doesn't mention pagination or record limits, these are likely not critical for this read-only change-listing tool, so the description is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (since, company, entities) with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'since a given moment' and 'named entities,' which are already in the schema. It does not introduce any new parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: 'List everything created, updated or deleted in QuickBooks Online since a given moment, for the named entities.' This is a specific verb (list), resource (QuickBooks changes), and scope (since a time, for entities). It distinguishes itself from the many get_* and search_* siblings by focusing on change events rather than static data retrieval, and it explicitly mentions the CDCResponse format.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to see changes since a moment, for specific entities. It also notes a key constraint: 'QuickBooks only looks back 30 days.' However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but given the tool's unique nature among siblings, this is minor.

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