get_gstin_returns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the result includes return fields and spans 'every' return in a financial year, but it omits potential pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, and any rate-limit or authorization context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short and front-loads the return type, but the sentence is ungrammatical and slightly confusing: 'Every GSTR-1 / GSTR-3B (and other type) return a GSTIN...' This undermines clarity despite the brevity.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and some output fields, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify result structure, pagination, and edge cases. The description is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 input schema already documents gstin and financial_year with formats and examples. The description adds only the contextual scope 'given financial year' but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource (GSTIN tax returns: GSTR-1/GSTR-3B and other types) and names the key output fields (period, filing date, status, ARN). However, it is grammatically awkward ('Every ... return a GSTIN filed...') and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_gstin_compliance, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as verify_gstin, get_gstin_compliance, or get_gstin_filing_preference, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'filed in the given financial year' implies the query context, but the description does not state usage boundaries or exclusions.

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