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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: row types, depth and value alignment, id semantics for summary vs detail reports, hidden_zero_rows counting, filter-confirmation behavior, and the no_data flag. This gives an agent a strong model of what the call will return and how it behaves.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then packs highly relevant output semantics into a compact second sentence. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 that there is no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: columns, rows, types, depth, id alignment, hidden_zero_rows, filters, and no_data. Combined with a fully documented input schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. It adds one useful nuance by explaining that filters only appear in the response when QuickBooks confirms it applied them, but it otherwise contributes little parameter-specific semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Generate the QuickBooks customer income report.' This is specific enough to identify the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this report from sibling tools like get_customer_sales or get_customer_balance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to get_customer_income rather than other report tools. The only usage context is implied by the tool name and title.

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