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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a GET endpoint and that the response is fixed JSON, implying a read-only operation, but it omits pagination, rate limits, and other runtime behavior that could matter to an agent.

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 description is three short sentences with the endpoint, required parameter, and filter guidance front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need not be described. For a simple list endpoint the description covers the required company and points elsewhere for filters, but the lack of query field detail leaves a meaningful gap for actually invoking the tool with filters.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions that company_name is explicitly required and that query fields are flat, but it does not explain what filter fields are valid or how to construct the query object beyond pointing to describe_nextesy_operation.

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 states the HTTP method and endpoint path for listing fiscal years, making the resource and operation understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_fiscal_year or get_fiscal_year_closing_state, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It notes that an explicit company is required and points to describe_nextesy_operation for filters, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to choose this list operation over the sibling get_fiscal_year or get_fiscal_year_closing_state tools.

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