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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the read-only nature. The description itself adds no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, truncation, lack of OR filtering, or case sensitivity—these are only in the schema. The description fails to disclose these behaviors beyond the annotations.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

While the schema provides extensive details on criteria and pagination, the description alone is minimal and doesn't hint at the tool's complexity or differentiate it from get_refund_receipt. It doesn't mention that it returns a page of records or how to narrow results, though the schema compensates. For a search tool with such a complex criteria parameter, a bit more context in the description would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (company and criteria), with the criteria description being highly detailed. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, but since the schema already covers them, the baseline 3 applies.

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 the action (search) and the target resource (refund receipt records in QuickBooks Online). It distinguishes from sibling get_refund_receipt (which fetches a single record) and the create/update/delete tools by implying a listing/search operation.

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 like get_refund_receipt or other search_* tools. It doesn't mention that this is for multiple records or how to filter, though the schema does. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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