Lodge financial year

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds context that it marks the year as lodged with the ATO, which is a state change but not destructive. It doesn't contradict annotations, and provides additional context about the action's place in the workflow.

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 two sentences, uses active voice, and is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (2 required params, no output schema), the description fully covers the purpose, prerequisites, and when to use. It references sibling tools for context and provides parameter sourcing tips, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 both parameters described. The description adds valuable sourcing guidance: 'discover via whoami or list_funds' for fund_id and 'the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)' for financial_year. This significantly helps the agent obtain correct values.

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 verb 'Mark' and resource 'financial year as lodged with the ATO'. It specifies the precondition ('Only works on a closed year') and the workflow order ('Use after the SMSF annual return has been submitted'), distinguishing it from siblings like close_financial_year or unlodge_financial_year.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after the SMSF annual return has been submitted, and only on a closed financial year. It implies when not to use (if the year is not closed or return not submitted), providing clear guidance.

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