freee_cost_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool compares current and previous year P/L, flags items exceeding a configurable threshold, and classifies costs as fixed/variable. It does not mention destructive behavior, auth needs, or output format, but covers the core behavioral traits adequately.

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 three sentences: a concise title-like first sentence, a detailed second sentence on functionality, and a third on usage. It is front-loaded with key information. A small amount of redundancy exists (e.g., 'expense structure' mentioned twice), but overall it is 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 the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage scenarios adequately. It lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination, but for an analysis tool, this is sufficient.

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 value by explaining the anomaly detection threshold ('flags items with YoY change exceeding this percentage') and the month behavior ('cumulative year-to-date if omitted'). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 specific function: 'Analyze expense structure with YoY anomaly detection and fixed/variable cost classification.' It uses specific verbs (analyzes, compares, classifies) and identifies the resource (expense structure). This differentiates it from sibling tools like freee_compare_periods and freee_monthly_trends by highlighting anomaly detection and cost classification features.

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 for cost health monitoring, identifying unexpected expense spikes, and understanding cost structure.' It provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use or explicitly list alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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