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

The description only restates the operation and adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention pagination, result size limits, filtering limitations, or any other runtime behavior.

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 and conveys the essential purpose immediately. It is appropriately concise, though it is terse enough to omit useful usage context.

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 search tool, the readOnlyHint annotation and the detailed criteria schema description provide most of what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The one-line description alone would be insufficient, but the schema fills the key operational gaps.

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 even though the tool description itself says nothing about parameters. The criteria parameter's own schema description is rich and covers operators, AND semantics, and pagination.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: searching journal entry records in QuickBooks Online. It is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_journal_entry or the many other search_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_journal_entry, get_journal_report, or search tools for other record types. No exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases are mentioned.

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