brc_get_financial_year

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or whether the call modifies state. The agent cannot infer safety or latency characteristics.

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 (7 words). While it saves tokens, it sacrifices completeness. The sentence is front-loaded and direct, but could include targeted details (e.g., return format) without becoming verbose. It earns its place but barely meets minimum informativeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should at least hint at what the return value represents (e.g., year start/end, string, number). Without output schema, the agent is left guessing the nature of the financial year data. The description is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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 sole parameter 'companyName' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value. The schema's comment is sufficient; the tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage or defaults, which is acceptable but provides no extra benefit.

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 'Gets' and resource 'BRC company financial year', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is unique among sibling tools, so no confusion with other getters. However, it lacks specificity about what aspect of the financial year is retrieved (e.g., current year, start/end dates), which could be improved.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit usage context would be valuable.

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