Get SMSF annual return

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (fields, per-member statements, gap register) and noting the auto-fill behavior. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it fetches, how to use it, and extra context. It is front-loaded and concise with no superfluous words.

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's simplicity (read-only, two parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the return content and lifecycle. It explains what is retrieved and how it fits into the workflow with related tools.

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%, with property descriptions already explaining the origin of fund_id and smsf_return_id. The description reiterates usage but adds no new semantic meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly specifies that the tool fetches an SMSF annual return with detailed components: every section and field with ATO labels, computed values, statuses, per-member statements, and the gap register. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_smsf_return_gaps or create_smsf_return.

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 advises to pass smsf_return_id from list output or create one first, providing clear usage context. It also mentions that figures auto-fill from the ledger and can be edited via update_smsf_return_field, guiding the agent on related actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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