syncForm106

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'log into a Hilan tenant' (a side effect) and 'download' (a read-like action), but the tool name 'syncForm106' suggests a syncing operation that might write data locally. The description does not clarify whether this is read-only, whether it stores data, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Log into a Hilan tenant and download Form 106') and then specifies the variable part (year). It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, earning a perfect score.

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 there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file path, PDF content, or successful message). It does not mention return value or any post-download behavior. Additionally, the 'sync' aspect is unexplained, leaving uncertainty about whether the tool stores data. The description covers the action but not the full context.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (year and tenant), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds clarity by mentioning 'for a given year, or the default year', which explains the year parameter's default behavior. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond that.

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 action: 'download Form 106 (annual tax summary)' from a Hilan tenant for a given year. It specifies the resource (Form 106) and differentiates it from sibling tools like syncPayslips, which handle payslips, making the purpose distinct.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a user needs an annual tax summary (Form 106). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. The sibling tools list shows different purposes, so there is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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