brc_validate_transaction_date

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'checks' without explaining behavior (e.g., returns boolean, throws error, or side effects). For a validation tool, details on response format or error handling are missing.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, conveying core purpose. However, it could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks information about return values or validation results. Output schema is absent; description should clarify what the tool returns.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (companyName example, transactionDate format). Description adds no additional context beyond schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks if a transaction date falls within the current financial year of the connected BRC company. Verb 'checks' and specific resource/scope are well-defined, distinguishing it from other validation tools like brc_check_transaction_settings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brc_company_readiness_check or brc_get_financial_year. No explicit context about prerequisites or typical use cases (e.g., before creating transactions).

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