mfc_ca_currentOffice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('取得します'), but does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior when no current office is selected, error conditions, or the output shape. This is thin but not misleading.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, which is appropriate for a simple zero-parameter getter.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it misses important operational context: the notion of 'current' office is only implied by the tool name, and the description does not explain the relationship with list_offices/use_office or what happens when no office is active.

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 the empty input schema fully covers this dimension. The description has no need to explain parameters, matching the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('取得します' / retrieves) and names a concrete resource ('事業者情報と会計期間' / business operator info and accounting period). It is distinguishable from sibling getters like mfc_ca_getAccounts and mfc_ca_getTaxes, though it does not explicitly say 'current office' in the text and leaves the exact scope of '事業者情報' somewhat open.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related office-management siblings such as list_offices, use_office, or remove_office. The description does not mention prerequisites like selecting an office first or alternative tools that also return office-related data.

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