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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what happens with an unknown or malformed id, no indication of error behavior, and no hint about the returned record's shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description still contributes essentially no extra behavioral context.

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 waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently informative. It reads as a fragment rather than a structured statement of action and scope.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. But with no output schema present, the description could have described the returned fiscal-year record or error cases, and it does not.

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% — the single parameter is fully documented as a GUID with a regex pattern — so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description's "by id" merely echoes this, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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?

"One fiscal year by id" states the resource (a single fiscal year) and the lookup key, which implicitly distinguishes it from bokio_list_fiscal_years. However, it carries no verb of its own and leans on the tool name/title to convey the retrieval action, making it close to a restatement rather than a specific statement of purpose.

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 on when to use this versus bokio_list_fiscal_years or any other sibling, and no note on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid company context or a known GUID). The only usable signal is the word "id," which an agent must infer means "use this when you already have the identifier."

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