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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scoping condition for when to fetch directly, but says nothing about error behavior (missing Id), company resolution, or return content; with annotations covering the basics, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the usage condition appended efficiently. No waste.

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 single-record read with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps are the lack of a named alternative search tool and no mention of behavior for an invalid or cross-company Id.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no detail about the id format or the company parameter's optionality; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 estimate from QuickBooks Online) with the lookup key (Id). Clear what it does, though sibling differentiation is only via the label and the 'when no search or write answer already holds it' clause rather than a named alternative.

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?

Gives a clear condition: use only when no search or write answer already holds the estimate. Implies search_estimates as the alternative without naming it, so the routing is clear but not explicit.

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