freee_accounting_policy_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (past journal patterns, capitalization patterns, account items with tax codes) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and use cases, and includes practical examples. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

No output schema, but the description explains the return content adequately for a context tool. It covers what patterns and items are returned. Missing details on error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining optional parameters (amount, partnerName) and their effect, but mostly restates schema descriptions. It does not provide significant new meaning beyond what is in the input 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get accounting policy context for decision support' with specific examples like asset vs expense classification, depreciation methods, and deferred expense treatment. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools such as freee_item_suggestion_context and 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about asset vs expense classification, depreciation methods, deferred expense treatment, etc.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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