get_document_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the return content (checklist split into present and missing, each missing item paired with a download guide) and prescribes how to render that output to the user. It omits lower-stakes details like confirmation that the call is a pure read with no side effects on filing state.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by agent-facing presentation instructions. No filler; the only cost is that the second half reads as prompt guidance rather than tool documentation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description compensates by describing the result structure and the required follow-up behavior. Given a single, self-describing parameter, what remains missing is mainly the parameter tie-in and the relationship to get_download_guide.

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 should compensate for the single required parameter, but it never mentions assessment_year. The phrase 'this filing' gestures at a filing context without explaining that the year must be supplied or that it must match the YYYY-YY pattern shown only in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the supporting documents this filing needs') and further specifies the return shape: present vs. missing. That is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from compute/ingest siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_download_guide, even though it claims to embed download guides per missing item.

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 gives a strong sequencing rule ('Ask for the missing documents before asking other questions') and tells the agent to present guides as steps, which is real usage guidance. But it never states the triggering condition for calling this tool, e.g., that it should run once a filing/assessment year is identified, nor how it relates to get_download_guide.

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