pennylane_list_fiscal_years

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context by naming the possible statuses (open, closed, frozen), but says nothing about pagination or result volume beyond what the schema already states.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that get to the point immediately with no filler. The trailing 'Utile pour...' clause is slightly redundant but still earns its place as a usage hint.

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 an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, returned fields, and status values adequately; only explicit usage routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – sort, limit, and cursor are all documented in the schema with formats, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liste les exercices fiscaux') and enumerates the returned fields (dates, statuts). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, which is reasonable since no sibling lists fiscal years.

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?

'Utile pour connaître les périodes comptables' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool. Usage is suggested rather than prescribed.

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