get_tax_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: sections filters detailed fields, summary totals are always included, and include_raw adds raw PDF lines with page numbers. It does not cover error cases or auth, but it explains the main execution traits.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, then parameter behavior in three short lines. No filler, and the most important output constraint (summary totals always included) is stated directly.

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 get-one-year tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers selection by year, optional field filtering, and raw output inclusion. It is only missing guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools and possible valid values for sections.

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%, so the description must define all parameters. It explains sections with examples ('salary', 'movable_wealth') and its filtering effect, include_raw with page-number detail, and year via 'for a year'. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Return the normalized declaration for a year,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings such as list_tax_returns and compare_tax_returns, which clearly list or compare rather than fetch one declaration.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_tax_returns, compare_tax_returns, or simulate. It implies retrieval use via 'Return...', but never states conditions or exclusions, leaving the choice to inference from sibling names.

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