merit_list_financial_years

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the endpoint, the read-style list nature, and the absence of filters, but does not mention ordering, pagination, whether inactive periods are included, or any response-level behavior. For a zero-parameter list operation this is workable but not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the resource, endpoint, and filtering behavior without unnecessary detail. The most useful information is front-loaded.

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 no-argument list tool, the description covers what the tool lists and the key constraint of no filters. It does not detail output fields, ordering, or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the trivial invocation make this a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is little for the description to add. The explicit 'No filters' statement usefully confirms that the tool accepts no invocation arguments.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Merit Aktiva accounting periods / financial years'), and adds the endpoint. This distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools, each of which targets a different resource.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for enumerating financial years/accounting periods and notes that no filters apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling covers the same resource, so the usage context is effectively clear.

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