get_period_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('Retrieve') and lists return fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid yearId), data source behavior, or whether results are paginated. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not rich in behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, return content, and a use case without wasted words. The first sentence states the action and primary input; the second clarifies output and application. Excellent structure.

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 simple, read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No critical information is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (yearId as integer, administrationId with default). The description reinforces that yearId is a fiscal year and hints at the date-to-period mapping but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond schema, matching the baseline expectation.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve the fiscal period table' and specifies the return content (period numbers, names, start/end dates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_gl_accounts, which serve different data retrieval purposes.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'translate a transaction date into a period name for reports' with a specific example. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context makes it clear this is for fiscal period mapping, which is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools. No exclusion criteria are stated, but the guidance is actionable.

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