Yearly Comparison Analytics

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 clear. The description adds that the tool shows year-over-year growth trends, going slightly beyond the raw name and title. However, it does not disclose details about the output structure or how it handles incomplete years, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences totaling under 20 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately states the key scoping (2-5 years) and output (growth trends), with no fluff or redundant information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations indicating a safe, read-only operation, the description provides adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It conveys the primary purpose and scope, though it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., a table or JSON). Given the lack of an output schema, a brief mention of what the 'showing' entails might improve completeness, but the current state is sufficient for typical use.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (years, metrics, response_format), so the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning. The description's mention of 'metrics' aligns with the schema's enum values, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already explains.

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 tool's function: 'Compare revenue and metrics across multiple years (2-5). Shows year-over-year growth trends.' It specifies the action (compare), the resource (revenue and metrics), and the scope (multiple years with a range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortnox_period_comparison that focus on arbitrary periods.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied through the description's mention of comparing across years; there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fortnox_period_comparison. The '2-5 years' scope provides context, but the description does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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