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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The tool description itself adds no behavioral context about pagination, truncation, or filtering limits; those details live in the input schema rather than the description, so this is adequate but not a strong description-level disclosure.

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 tool description is a single efficient sentence, and the criteria description is dense but information-bearing. It is slightly monolithic as one long paragraph, but every part 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?

The schema's criteria description plus the annotations cover query syntax, operator limitations, field restrictions, case sensitivity, paging and truncation, inactive-record defaults, and sensitive-field omissions. No output schema exists, but the resource is clear from the tool name and description, so the agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The criteria parameter description is genuinely rich, covering operators, AND semantics, paging, and inactive-record behavior, but that value is in the schema, not the tool description, so the description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: Search customer records in QuickBooks Online. It is clear enough to distinguish from other search_* tools by entity, though it does not contrast itself with the single-record get_customer sibling.

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 tool-level description gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_customer, get_customer_balance, get_customer_sales, or other search tools. Usage is only implied by the name and the detailed criteria schema, not stated with any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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