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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds no context about pagination, truncation, case-sensitivity, inactive-record handling, or unavailable fields. Those details are in the schema's criteria description, not the tool description. No contradiction with 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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and states the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose complexity is largely delegated to the input schema.

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 description is thin, but the input schema's criteria description provides extensive contextual detail: filtering operators, pagination, truncation, case-sensitivity, inactive-record behavior, and unavailable fields. Annotations cover safety. The only notable gap is the unspecified return shape of employee records, which is minor for a search tool.

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?

The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, and the criteria parameter has an exceptionally detailed description covering operators, pagination, and limitations. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load; the description offers no additional clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('employee records') and identifies the platform (QuickBooks Online). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_employee or search_customers; the resource is evident from the name and description.

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 description implies usage: use this tool to search employee records. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_employee (single record) or other search_* tools, nor does it mention alternative routing. The schema's criteria description provides detailed usage guidance, but the description itself lacks when-to-use versus alternatives.

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