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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so a terse description is acceptable. Rich behavioral facts (1000-record page cap, page truncation, inactive records excluded by default, no OR support) are disclosed in the criteria parameter schema rather than in the description itself, which adds transparency but not from the description's own text.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word in 'Search term records in QuickBooks Online' earns its place. No redundancy with title or annotations.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the tool is operationally well documented because the criteria parameter covers filtering, pagination, truncation, inactive-record defaults, and unavailable data types. The notable gap is tool-selection guidance (search_terms vs get_term), but an agent can invoke this tool correctly from the schema alone.

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 description is unusually thorough (operator syntax, field restrictions, case sensitivity, pagination, truncation). The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, so it correctly sits at the baseline with the schema doing 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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('term records') within QuickBooks Online, so an agent can tell what entity it operates on. Among siblings there are both search_terms and get_term, and the description does not explicitly separate them, but 'Search term records' is unambiguous about scope.

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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this over get_term or the many other search_* tools. The criteria parameter documents query mechanics, but nothing tells the agent when search is the appropriate tool versus fetching a single term.

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