年度・四半期判定

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the fiscal-year start month is configurable and defaults to April, and the verb '返します' implies a side-effect-free computation. It does not specify the output format or edge-case behavior, but for a pure date calculation this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every clause adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter computation with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential behavior and configuration. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap because the return value (fiscal year and quarter) is not explicitly formatted, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of a configurable start month with April default mirrors the parameter descriptions and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns the fiscal year and quarter for a given date, using the specific verb '返します' (returns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on business days, holidays, and month-end info.

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 purpose implicitly signals use for fiscal-period classification, and sibling names make alternatives clear. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over the business-day/holiday tools.

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