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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that ProcessPayment must be omitted or false, a specific behavior not captured by the annotation. The schema's criteria description adds further behavioral details (no OR, no Line-field filtering, pagination/truncation), though these come from the schema rather than the narrative description.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a crucial domain clarification and a processing constraint. No repetition of schema data or annotation content.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, two parameters (0 required), and a comprehensive schema description covering filter syntax, limitations, and pagination, the tool is well-documented overall. The narrative description covers core semantics and the processing constraint. A minor gap is that the response shape is not described, but no output schema exists and this is probably acceptable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The criteria parameter's description is especially rich, covering operators, filtering limitations, and pagination behavior. The narrative description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search payment records in QuickBooks Online', a clear verb+resource statement. It then defines 'payment' specifically as 'an accounting record of a customer payment already received', which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_bill_payments (vendor payments) and search_credit_card_payment_txns. The additional constraint 'Payment processing is not supported' further distinguishes it from payment-processing operations.

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 context by clarifying that this covers customer payments already received, and warns that payment processing is not supported. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the boundary with search_bill_payments or get_payment from the definition of 'payment' alone.

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