annual_return

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (ZIP containing PDF and signing guide) but does not mention authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient for a tool with 74 parameters.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose and output. It avoids unnecessary words. However, for a tool with many parameters, more structure might be beneficial, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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 the tool's complexity (74 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, dependencies, or provide context for correct invocation. The agent lacks essential information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is only 7%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. With 74 parameters, most lacking descriptions, the agent cannot infer what data to provide. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 generates a pre-filled FAR01 annual return form for Gibraltar Companies House, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the output format (ZIP with PDF and signing guide). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle other company functions.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies use for annual return filing. Without usage context, an agent might misuse it or overlook required dependencies.

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