mfc_ca_getTermSettings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation implicitly, but does not mention authentication requirements, fallback behavior for office_code, or any potential error conditions. The added context about the settings content is helpful, but it does not go beyond what the name implies.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately brief and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 get operation with one parameter fully described by the schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any usage context or notes on when to invoke it, and it does not mention the output format or any caveats. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 single parameter office_code is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including when it is required or optional. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (取得します = retrieves) and a specific resource (会計年度設定 = fiscal year settings), with examples of the content (tax-inclusive/exclusive, taxation method). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAccounts, getTaxes, and getJournals.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. For a read operation among many similar getters, this is a notable gap.

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