list_calendar_years

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral information beyond restating the tool's name, lacking details on pagination behavior, result ordering, or any special list semantics.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it is also under-specified in terms of useful context.

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?

Given the low complexity of a simple paginated list tool, the description, schema, and annotations together are minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no description of return values, ordering, or list-specific behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and offset), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Fetch a list of calendar years' is a specific verb+resource phrase that clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_calendar_years' or 'get_calendar_year', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_calendar_years' or 'list_business_years'. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or context where this specific listing tool is preferred.

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