Get Accounts Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (accounting period, preparation status, next steps), which is context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only status getter this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key result fields. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing to document. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0-param tools, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 retrieves annual accounts preparation status for the current company, mentioning specific data points (accounting period, preparation status, next steps). It distinguishes from siblings like get_filed_accounts_history and get_deadlines by focusing on the preparation workflow rather than filed history or deadlines.

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?

Explicitly lists example user intents that should trigger this tool ('annual accounts, Companies House filing, year-end accounts, or corporation tax deadline'), giving clear guidance on when to use it. No alternative tools are named, but the scope is well-defined and distinct from similar financial reporting tools.

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