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

Annotations already declare this a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: QuickBooks has no OR, only top-level fields can be filtered, field names are case-sensitive, sensitive data is unavailable, and results are limited/truncated to one page. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 main description is one efficient sentence. The criteria parameter text is dense but every clause carries a distinct operational constraint or clarification, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately detailed for a search tool with complex filtering semantics.

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?

The definition covers search syntax, operator semantics, QuickBooks-specific limitations, pagination and truncation behavior, sensitive-data restrictions, and the relevant sibling alternative. Despite no output schema, the return behavior is described well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the criteria description substantially enriches the parameter meaning with accepted forms, operators, wildcard syntax, sort/limit/offset options, filtering restrictions, and field examples. The company parameter is also clearly explained with connection disambiguation and optionality.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('company info records'), and the system ('QuickBooks Online'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_company_info, though the schema text does point that out; the main description alone is clear but not distinguishing.

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 criteria description gives explicit guidance: it notes there is only one company info record, names get_company_info as the direct read, and explains how to page or filter when using this search tool. This effectively tells the agent when the search tool is appropriate and when to prefer a sibling.

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