qbo_tax_rates_search

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 only restates the purpose and match type. It does not disclose whether the result set is paginated/capped, whether partial or empty results are possible, or that this is a read-only operation, all of which matter for an unannotated search tool.

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 no filler; the action and match criterion come first. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a tool whose siblings need disambiguation.

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 simple 3-parameter search with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It is missing routing context against qbo_tax_rates_list and any note on result-set behavior, which leaves an agent guessing at the edges.

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 documents the term, maxResults, and startPosition semantics including the LIKE wildcard and pagination defaults. The description's '(LIKE match)' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (TaxRate records) plus the matching mechanism (Name, LIKE match), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling qbo_tax_rates_list, which an agent could easily confuse with this filtered search.

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 guidance about when to use this search vs qbo_tax_rates_list or qbo_tax_rates_get. The 'by Name' phrasing weakly implies 'use when you know part of the name,' but the alternative and the exclusion condition are left entirely to inference.

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