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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: returned records are full records including SyncToken, and multi-Id batch reads via IN are supported. It doesn't mention the 1000-record cap in the description, though that lives in the criteria schema.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the essential fact first (what it searches, then what comes back and how to batch). No filler or repetition of schema 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (full records with SyncToken). The criteria parameter is exhaustively documented in-schema. Only missing element is any note about result-size limits, which is covered inside the criteria description rather than the top-level text.

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 criteria parameter's operators, AND semantics, allowed top-level fields, and pagination are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the 'Id IN' usage pattern, which is marginally beyond that. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search purchase records in QuickBooks Online'), so the agent knows exactly what domain is being queried. It implicitly contrasts with get_purchase by noting no follow-up get is needed, but it never names sibling search tools (e.g. search_purchase_orders, list_purchases_without_payee) that could be confused with it.

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 two concrete usage patterns: results are self-sufficient so a follow-up get is unnecessary, and several known Ids can be read in one call via 'Id IN'. That effectively steers the agent away from get_purchase, but there is no explicit when-not guidance versus other purchase-related retrievers.

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