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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it reveals nothing beyond the tool's name. It does not indicate whether the tool is a pure calculation, what inputs affect behavior, whether any side effects exist, or what the return value represents. This is a complete absence of behavioral disclosure.

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 only two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded verb, no scoping detail, and no structure of any kind. A truly concise description would still communicate the essential action and purpose, which this one fails to do.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a fiscal year calculation does and how startMonth factors in. It does neither, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently select or invoke the tool. The definition is wholly inadequate even for a simple utility.

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 baseline for this dimension is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The schema's own parameter descriptions ('Date to process', 'StartMonth to process') are minimal, and the tool description adds no additional meaning about formats, defaults, or the relationship between parameters. It neither improves nor harms the schema's weak semantics.

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 'Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year' merely restates the tool name and title without any verb or resource. It does not state that the tool computes or returns a fiscal year for a given date, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many date-related siblings. This is a pure tautology.

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 tool versus alternatives such as x402-fiscal-quarter, x402-quarter-of-year, or other date utilities. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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