Get fiscal year

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured metadata. The description makes no false claims, but it also adds nothing behavioral beyond this: no mention of return format, 404 behavior, or whether accounting periods are included. The description is neutral rather than harmful.

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 sentence with zero filler and is entirely devoted to the core behavior. It is efficiently front-loaded, though the spareness is a double-edged sword: there is no wasted prose, but also no room for the missed context noted in the other dimensions.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only fetch tool, the definition is near the minimal acceptable bar. The main missing piece is a pointer to the sibling list endpoint or the return envelope, either of which would help an agent confidently invoke it without guessing. As-is, it will work, but a small amount of extra guidance would have made the difference.

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% — the only parameter, fiscalYearId, is defined as a path parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'one', which is a missed opportunity to clarify the ID format or that it must come from the list endpoint. Baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage, but the description does not go the extra mile.

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 'Fetches one fiscal year' states a specific verb and resource, and the 'one' qualifier hints at the single-record read versus a list. However, it barely rises above a sentence-form version of the tool name 'get_fiscal_year', and it never names or differentiates from its natural sibling bokio_list_fiscal_years. It is clear but provides minimal informational lift over the tool name itself.

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 on when to call this versus the obvious sibling bokio_list_fiscal_years, and no preconditions or reprs are mentioned. An agent must infer the get-vs-list convention from the tool names alone, which are not explicitly connected despite being directly relevant to the same resource.

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