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. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on not-found errors, inactive/deleted terms, permission requirements, or whether the record is returned raw. For a fetch tool with full annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing conditional clause is compact but slightly cryptic, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 complete schema documentation, annotation-covered safety, and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on a missing or inactive term.

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. The description only restates that lookup is by Id and adds no format, resolution, or company-selection detail beyond the schema text. 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 term), source system (QuickBooks Online), and lookup key (by Id). This distinguishes it from the plural list-style siblings such as search_terms and from create_term/update_term, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 trailing clause 'when no search or write answer already holds it' is an implied when-to-use hint, suggesting the agent should prefer an existing search or write result over a fresh fetch. However, it never names search_terms as the alternative nor defines what 'write answer' means, so the routing guidance is suggestive rather than explicit.

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