freee_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully communicates behavior: it reports token validity, expiry, and remaining minutes for one or all authenticated companies. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is appropriate. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate details. Every word earns its place without redundancies. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (validity, expiry, remaining minutes) and when to use it. It could be more specific about the response structure, but for a simple status check, this is sufficient. It covers the optional parameter usage and the scope (one or all companies).

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 schema already covers the one optional parameter (companyId) with a clear description. The tool description adds the ability to check 'one or all' companies, but this is not reflected in the schema (which implies a single company via default). This creates slight ambiguity, but the description does add context beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 'Check' and the resource 'authentication status for freee API tokens', then details what it shows: token validity, expiry time, and remaining minutes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like freee_get_access_token (token acquisition) and freee_clear_auth (token revocation).

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 advises 'Use to verify auth before making API calls', providing clear context for when to invoke. While it doesn't list negative cases or alternative tools, this guidance directly supports agent decision-making.

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