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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the one-line search description does not need to repeat a safety warning. It adds no behavioral detail beyond 'Search' – pagination, truncation, lack of OR, and field restrictions appear in the criteria parameter's schema text rather than in the tool description, leaving a modest gap.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though its brevity means it carries no supporting structure such as scope examples or exclusions.

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?

Together with the rich criteria schema and read-only annotations, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly, including filter behavior and page-size limits. It stops short of 5 because there is no output schema and the tool description does not describe result shape or default sorting beyond what the criteria text says.

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% and the criteria parameter is extensively documented with operators, AND semantics, limitations, and paging. The tool description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the high-coverage 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 names a specific verb and resource, 'Search sales receipt records in QuickBooks Online,' which is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_* tools or from get_sales_receipt, so it misses the top-level differentiation.

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 tool description gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as get_sales_receipt or search_refund_receipts, and states no exclusions or prerequisites. The criteria parameter documents filtering mechanics but does not address tool selection.

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