list_returns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one scoping behavior ('visible to the configured vendor adapter') but omits any indication of read-only nature, required permissions, response format, or pagination. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then the scope. It is concise and every word earns its place, though it is sparse enough to reduce overall helpfulness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot know the shape of the returned tax returns, whether pagination exists, or how the two optional parameters affect results. The description is a purpose statement, not a usable contract.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. The schema provides only names and type/enum/range constraints, leaving the domain meaning of tax_year and return_type unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List tax returns', and the qualifier 'visible to the configured vendor adapter' clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_forms and list_concepts.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions that should lead an agent to prefer this over other list or retrieval tools.

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