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

Annotations establish readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: results are full records carrying SyncToken, so no follow-up get is required. It does not restate pagination/truncation behavior here, which lives in the schema instead.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and immediately followed by the key operational payoff (no extra get, batch Ids). Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (full records with SyncToken), and the criteria schema handles filtering/pagination. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 schema already documents both company and criteria in depth. The description adds only the Id IN hint, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides; 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 (Search) and resource (credit memo records) scoped to QuickBooks Online. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_credit_memo by noting results are full records, though it never names the sibling 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: no follow-up get is needed, and multiple known Ids can be read in one call via Id IN. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_credit_memo or search_vendor_credits instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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