freee_cash_position

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 explains what data is aggregated (walletable balances, invoices, expense deals) and the output metrics (total cash, net position, overdue amounts). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (e.g., no data modification) or disclose any authentication or rate limit requirements. While the description is fairly transparent, it could be more explicit about safety.

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: the first states purpose and components, the second lists outputs. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy, front-loaded with the key verb 'Get'. Highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the output fields (total cash, net position, overdue amounts), enabling the agent to understand what data to expect. Could potentially add currency details, but overall it's complete for a consolidated overview tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists (companyId), and the schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already provides a description). The description adds extra context: 'optional, uses FREEE_DEFAULT_COMPANY_ID if not provided.' This additional semantic information about default behavior adds value beyond the 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 as 'Get consolidated cash position overview' and explicitly lists the components (walletable balances, unpaid invoices, unsettled expense deals) and outputs (total cash, net position, overdue amounts). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like freee_ar_aging (focused on receivables aging) and freee_get_walletables (wallet balances).

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 this is the go-to for a quick financial health assessment by saying 'Single call combines... into one summary.' However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like freee_ar_aging for detailed receivables analysis. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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