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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'search' — pagination, truncation, and QuickBooks data limitations appear only in the input schema, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it adds little substance beyond what the title already conveys.

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 rich input schema carries most of the operational weight, documenting criteria syntax, filter restrictions, and one-page truncation. However, with no output schema and no sibling routing in the description, the agent gets no return-shape guidance and only implied selection cues, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 both parameters have detailed documentation, especially the criteria parameter with operators, AND semantics, field limitations, case sensitivity, and pagination. The tool description adds zero parameter meaning, so the 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 the action and object ('Search deposit records') and scopes it to QuickBooks Online. It is unambiguous about being a search tool, but it does not contrast with get_deposit or mention that it returns a page of matching records, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus get_deposit or other search_* tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The only usage hints live inside the criteria parameter schema, not in the tool description itself.

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