brc_get_financial_year

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, required permissions, or any side effects. Additional context like whether it returns current or historical data is missing.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could be slightly more informative, it achieves conciseness without verbosity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., financial year details). It fails to describe the output or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's complete functionality.

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 is 3. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter 'companyName' is fully described in the schema, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('BRC company financial year'), clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get' tools which target other entities (e.g., get_accrual, get_bank_account). However, it doesn't elaborate on what exactly constitutes a financial year (e.g., start/end dates).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, use cases, or distinguishing factors from other get/list tools. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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