List supported fiscal years

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that it lists years for which 'rule packs' exist and includes 'filing deadlines for the current assessment year', providing context beyond the annotations about the data scope and additional information returned.

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 sentence of about 15 words, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 listing tool with no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and additional detail (deadlines). It could mention whether the list is chronological or includes both past and future years, but overall it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds a hint about what the output contains (filing deadlines), which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'fiscal years', specifying that it lists years with rule packs and filing deadlines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on regimes, computations, or parsing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its simplicity and distinct function from siblings, the context implies it is for discovering available fiscal years. Still, a sentence about prerequisites or follow-up actions would improve clarity.

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