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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the no-write/no-destructive nature is covered. The description adds the multicurrency context, which is helpful, but it does not disclose operational behaviors like pagination, page-size limits, or filter constraints; those live in the criteria schema, not the description. No contradiction with annotations, but the description adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. The second sentence about multicurrency adds meaningful context without bloating the definition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the rich criteria schema and read-only annotations, the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks an explicit mention of sibling alternatives and does not describe return format, but those gaps are partially mitigated by schema coverage and the simple nature of a search tool. Slightly more routing guidance would make it complete.

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%, and the criteria parameter has a very detailed schema description covering operators, filtering constraints, and pagination behavior. The tool description itself doesn't explain the parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Search company currency records in QuickBooks Online.' It adds useful domain context by noting these are the currencies the company transacts in and that the tool is only meaningful with multicurrency enabled. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_exchange_rates or get_company_currency, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_exchange_rates or get_company_currency. The only usage signal is the multicurrency prerequisite, which is a condition rather than a routing rule. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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