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

The description is essentially a restatement of the title and adds no behavioral detail beyond what the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already convey. Pagination, truncation, filtering limitations, and field-level restrictions appear only in the parameter schema, not in the tool description itself.

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, and it names the verb and resource immediately. It loses a point because it closely echoes the title without adding much substantive information.

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 parameter schema is rich enough to support correct invocation, covering operators, pagination, and unsupported fields. However, the definition as a whole omits selection guidance versus get_tax_agency and does not describe the shape of returned records, though the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.

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%, with thorough documentation of both the 'company' parameter and the highly flexible 'criteria' parameter. The one-line tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names a concrete resource ('tax agency records in QuickBooks Online'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only search over tax agencies. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_tax_agency, search_tax_codes, or search_tax_rates, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of an alternative such as get_tax_agency for a single record or search_tax_rates for tax rates. The tool name implies a search use case, but no when-to-use condition, exclusion, or alternative is stated.

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