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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it clarifies no bank/card initiation, and the criteria description details limitations (no OR, no Line fields, pagination, truncation, case sensitivity, data unavailability). This goes beyond annotations, so a high score is warranted, though not perfect because it doesn't mention response format.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose and non-initiation caveat. The criteria parameter documentation is long but necessary given the tool's complexity. It does not waste words, though the length is justified by the utility. Slight deduction for not summarizing key limitations more tightly.

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 search tool with extensive schema coverage, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, non-side-effects, filtering syntax, limitations, and pagination. Missing output schema is fine since it's a search tool. An agent has enough to call it correctly without external documentation.

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 schema already provides very high coverage (100%) for the criteria parameter, but the description adds substantial value by explaining operators, AND semantics, field limitations, pagination, and case-sensitivity. The company parameter is simple and schema-covered. This exceeds schema-only meaning.

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 it searches bill payment records in QuickBooks Online, specifying it is an accounting record of a payment to a vendor and explicitly notes it does not initiate a bank or card payment. This distinguishes it from payment initiation tools like 'send_payment' or 'create_bill_payment'.

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 usage for searching/filtering historical payment records, and the extensive criteria documentation covers how to construct filters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative search tools (e.g., search_payments), but the criteria details provide strong usage guidance for filtering.

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