freee_account_item_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool analyzes past deals by partner/amount and returns suggestions with usage frequency, tax classification, and patterns. This is sufficient for a read-like context tool, though it could mention that it does not modify data or any performance considerations.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, methodology, and ideal usage. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states the core function. Each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain returns. It states what is suggested (account items, usage frequency, tax classification, patterns). Given the sibling set, it sufficiently differentiates. Could be more explicit about the format or depth of context, but overall complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's utility.

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 describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'analyzes past deals by partner/amount'), but it does not provide additional per-parameter details beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already adequate.

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's purpose: 'Get account item recommendation context for a transaction'. It explains the action (analyzes past deals) and the output (suggest account items, usage frequency, tax classification, patterns). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'freee_item_suggestion_context' or 'freee_master_context'.

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 provides usage context: 'Ideal for consistent bookkeeping when unsure which account item to use.' This implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Sibling list shows similar tools, but no direct comparison is made, leaving some ambiguity.

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