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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact -- the returned records include SyncToken so no follow-up get is required -- but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or response shape. Modest added value against an already-covered annotation set.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the practical tip. 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?

For a read-only search tool with a rich, 100%-covered schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what it needs to: scope, result completeness, and one batching pattern. It omits alternative routing (get_journal_report, get_journal_entry) and any pagination reminder, but the schema already handles the latter.

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%: `company` and `criteria` are both documented in detail, including operators, ANDed filters, case-sensitivity, and the 1000-record page limit. The description only adds the `Id IN` tip, which is already implied by the schema's operator list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (journal entry records in QuickBooks Online), and differentiates from the sibling get_journal_entry by noting results are full records with SyncToken so no follow-up get is needed. An agent can pick between search and get without opening either schema.

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 concrete usage context: read several known Ids in one call with `Id IN`, which tells the agent when a search beats multiple gets. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_journal_report or get_journal_entry for a single Id), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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