mf_accounting_get_office

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what is retrieved but doesn't mention permissions, caching, or side effects. For a read-only operation with no parameters, this is acceptable but not rich; some tools might require auth, which isn't mentioned.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose. Perfectly concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what is returned (e.g., structure of business operator info and accounting period). It only names the entities without detailing the return format. For a no-param getter, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps about the output.

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 parameter semantics is not applicable. The schema is empty and fully described. The description correctly reflects that no parameters are needed. Baseline is 4 for 0 params.

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 and resource: retrieving current business operator information and accounting period. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mf_accounting_list_accounts and mf_accounting_list_journals by focusing on a singular current context rather than lists. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from every relevant sibling, and the scope of '事業者情報' (business operator information) could overlap with other accounting tools.

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 retrieval tool for current context, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With many sibling tools, clearer routing would be expected. It's minimal but adequate for a simple getter.

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