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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does signal read semantics via 'GET' and a mandatory company constraint, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or pagination. The minimal read/company context is useful but incomplete for an unannotated 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the mandatory-company constraint sits near the front. The 'Fixed JSON GET' jargon is slightly wasteful but not enough to detract significantly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations the description is thin on the id semantics and query structure. The pointer to describe_nextesy_operation partially offsets this, making it adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps company_name to a required explicit value and explains that query holds flat filter fields (deflecting to describe_nextesy_operation), which adds some meaning. The id parameter's meaning and format remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

The description conveys the operation through the endpoint pattern (GET .../fiscal-years/{id}), implying retrieval of a single fiscal year, but frames it as an HTTP endpoint rather than stating purpose in plain terms. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_fiscal_years or get_fiscal_year_closing_state, both of which target similarly-named resources.

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?

'Explicit company required' gives a precondition for company_name, and 'see describe_nextesy_operation for filters' routes the agent for filter syntax. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_fiscal_years or the closing-state sibling, so the usage is only implied by the {id} path.

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