search_employees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the criteria syntax accepts, how limit/offset/count interact, what fetchAll does to result size or cost, or whether results are paginated. For a query tool with an entirely undocumented nested parameter object, this is a substantial gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally sound. However, its brevity is achieved through omission rather than efficiency, leaving the definition too thin to act on.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object whose properties are entirely undocumented, the description does not supply enough for correct invocation. At minimum it should describe the criteria filter format, pagination behavior, and what a result record contains.

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 0% and the single required "params" object hides seven undocumented properties (asc, desc, count, limit, offset, criteria, fetchAll). The description adds nothing beyond repeating the word "criteria" — it gives no syntax, no defaults, no ordering or pagination semantics for any of them. The agent would have to guess how to construct a valid search.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search employees") plus the system (QuickBooks Online), so the agent can immediately tell this is a filtered-list operation rather than a by-ID fetch like get_employee. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling get_employee/create_employee/update_employee/delete_employee, and "match given criteria" is vague about what the criteria can express.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer search_employees over get_employee when you only have a name or attribute, and nothing states prerequisites or when a search is preferable to listing. The only contextual hint is the implied contrast in the verb "search".

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