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

The criteria parameter description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: filters are ANDed with no OR support, only top-level QuickBooks fields can be filtered, field names and values are case-sensitive, sensitive identifier fields are unavailable, one page returns at most 1000 records, and large pages are truncated. These runtime constraints go far beyond what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint provide.

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 top-level description is one short, filler-free sentence. The long criteria text is dense but purposeful, front-loading accepted query shapes and then operational constraints. Each clause adds decision-relevant information with no repetition.

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?

For a read-only search tool, the definition is nearly complete: it explains company selection, query syntax, operators, unsupported filters, privacy limitations, pagination/truncation behavior, and default results. It does not list tax-code-specific filterable fields or describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the generic field list makes invocation safe.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, and the rich criteria syntax lives in the schema rather than in the description. The baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('tax code records') in QuickBooks Online, so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_tax_agencies or get_tax_code, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The verb 'Search' plus 'tax code records' implies the intended use case, but the agent must infer it from tool naming rather than from stated guidance.

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