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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral information beyond the word 'Search'. It does not mention pagination, truncation, filtering limitations, or the fact that one call returns one page—those details live in the parameter schema rather than the tool 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and system context efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 overall tool definition is quite complete because the criteria parameter description provides detailed behavior on operators, case-sensitivity, privacy constraints, pagination, and truncation. The main description is thin, but the schema richness compensates; only alternative-tool guidance is missing.

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 fully documents both the company and criteria parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 names a specific action ('Search') and resource ('purchase order records in QuickBooks Online'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer it targets purchase orders rather than purchases or bills.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_purchase_order or search_purchases. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria; usage is only implied by the tool's name and resource.

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