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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the main behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'Gets', such as what the returned financial year represents, whether it depends on company configuration, or any edge cases, so no value is being added beyond the annotations.

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 one short sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and object immediately and earns every word it uses.

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 read-only getter with one required and one well-documented optional parameter, the description is minimal but usable. However, because there is no output schema and no definition of what 'financial year' returns, an agent may not know whether to expect a year value, dates, or a fiscal period object, so the context is 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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema, including the detailed connectionRef guidance. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a clear verb ('Gets') and identifies the resource ('BRC company financial year'), which makes the tool's basic intent recognizable. It does not contrast itself with sibling getters, but the resource is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 guidance about when to call this tool instead of other company-related getters, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an established connection. The single sentence states only that the tool gets the financial year, leaving selection criteria to inference.

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