Open an SMSF annual return

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

The description discloses key behaviors: idempotency, that it returns the existing return if one already exists, and that it returns auto-filled figures and gaps. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), providing clear understanding of the tool's effect.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose, idempotency, and return value. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 has only two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, its idempotent nature, and what it returns. It could potentially elaborate on the 'auto-filled figures and gaps', but overall it is complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (fund_id and financial_year). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens or resumes an SMSF annual return for a fund and financial year. It specifies the verb 'Open (or resume)' and the resource 'SMSF annual return', and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_smsf_return' by implying this is for creation/resumption.

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 mentions idempotency and returning existing returns, which gives some context for usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_smsf_return' or 'update_smsf_return_field'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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