Prepare Year-End Close

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by clarifying it's a dry-run and detailing the package contents. No contradictions with annotations.

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 16 words, front-loading the core action ('Prepare a dry-run year-end close package') with no redundant information. Every part is essential.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output contents (unresolved items, balance check, draft entries). It lacks mention of return format or pagination, but the tool is simple and expected output is clear from context.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'year' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'prepare' and the resource 'dry-run year-end close package', and specifies contents (unresolved items, balance check, draft P&L entries). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_year_end_close' by indicating this is a dry-run, not the actual close.

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?

The description implies usage as a dry-run before actual closing (due to 'dry-run'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_year_end_close' or 'month_end_close_checklist'. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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