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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the returned field set (with no output schema, that is useful), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or how filtering affects results.

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 single noun phrase is compact with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it omits a verb and any operational context. Shortness here comes at the cost of guidance, not efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a helpful stand-in for return values, and zero required parameters keeps the tool simple. However, for a list tool with filtering and pagination, the absence of any mention of the query filter or page controls leaves the description only minimally adequate.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the field list, and notably omits mentioning the powerful 'query' filter (filterable fields: startDate, endDate, accountingMethod, status) that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 names the resource and enumerates its fields (id, start/end date, accounting method, open/closed status), which combined with the title 'List fiscal years' makes the operation clear. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling bokio_get_fiscal_year (singular lookup), leaving a small ambiguity for an agent choosing between list and get.

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 statement of when to use this list tool versus bokio_get_fiscal_year, nor any mention that pagination and the 'query' filter are available. An agent gets the resource but no routing or prerequisite guidance.

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