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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that retrieval is by Id and a conditional usage note, but doesn't mention error behavior for missing Ids or company resolution — modest value beyond 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence where every clause earns its place: verb, resource, source, key, and a usage caveat. No padding.

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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify the optional company parameter's fallback behavior, though the schema does.

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 coverage is 100%, so both id and company are fully documented in the schema. The description only references 'by Id' and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 (Get), resource (a single department), and source system (QuickBooks Online) by Id. Distinguishes from list-style siblings like search_departments by emphasizing 'single' and Id-based retrieval.

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?

Adds a selection heuristic: use when no search or write answer already holds it, implying preference for search_departments or write responses when applicable. Explicit exclusions are present but the alternative naming is generic rather than pointing to a specific sibling tool.

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