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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: results are full records including SyncToken, so a follow-up read is unnecessary. It stops short of describing pagination or truncation behavior, which lives only in the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load purpose and then the SyncToken/no-get payoff. No filler, though the second clause is slightly compressed to the point of being terse.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a 100%-covered schema (no output schema needed), the description supplies the one non-obvious fact an agent needs: results are complete records. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 the criteria syntax, operator list, ANDing behavior and pagination are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the mild hint that Id IN can batch-read known Ids, which is baseline-level value over structured data.

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 (Search) and resource (company info records in QuickBooks Online), which is unambiguous. It also nods toward sibling differentiation by noting no subsequent get is needed, but does not explicitly name get_company_info, the natural 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?

The phrase 'read several known Ids in one search with Id IN' implies a useful batch-read scenario, so context is present. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool versus get_company_info (which the schema mentions but the description omits).

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