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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: results include SyncToken, meaning an update can follow without a refetch. Pagination/truncation limits, however, live in the schema's criteria description rather than here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the highest-value behavioral fact. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema coverage is nearly sufficient: it explains the return shape (full records with SyncToken) and a batch-read pattern. It does not restate pagination, but the schema does, so this is a minor gap.

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 documented in exhaustive detail in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the 'Id IN' usage pattern and does not otherwise extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Search') and resource ('tax code records') and scopes it to QuickBooks Online. It also pre-empts confusion with the sibling get_tax_code by stating results are full records so 'no get is needed after', which lets an agent route correctly without opening a schema.

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 a concrete retrieval pattern ('read several known Ids in one search with Id IN') and implicitly steers away from get_tax_code by noting full records are returned. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative for the single-record case, so it stops short of a 5.

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