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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond the structured data: returns are full records including SyncToken, so no subsequent get is required. Pagination/truncation details live in the schema, not the 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the highest-value operational hint (no follow-up get needed). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value context, and it does (full records with SyncToken). Pagination and filter constraints are fully covered by the schema. Nearly complete for a read-only search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'Id IN' pattern, which the schema already documents via the IN operator, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ('Search tax agency records in QuickBooks Online') and implicitly contrasts with get_tax_agency by noting results are full records so 'no get is needed after'. Clear enough to distinguish from the search_* family, though it doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly.

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 actionable usage guidance: use this instead of a follow-up get, and use 'Id IN' to batch-read several known Ids in one call. No exclusions are stated, but the when-to-use context relative to get is clear.

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