qbo_tax_codes_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Search' implies a read-only lookup, but it never confirms non-destructive behavior, permission requirements, or result ordering, and the LIKE note merely restates the schema.

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; the matching rule is stated immediately. It is appropriately terse for the mechanism it exposes, though arguably under-sized given the absence of 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return shape, pagination defaults, and ordering unexplained. The rich parameter schema compensates partially, but an agent gets no statement about what a result set 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents term, maxResults, and startPosition including defaults and the wildcard behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (TaxCode records) plus the exact matching scope (Name, LIKE match). It is clearly distinct from qbo_tax_codes_list and qbo_tax_codes_get, though it never names those siblings 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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies you would use this when you know part of a code's name, but it never says to prefer qbo_tax_codes_list for a full enumeration or qbo_tax_codes_get for a known ID.

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