freee_get_account_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions efficiency and caching but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any rate limits. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence provides value: purpose, usage context, and caching recommendation. No wasted words.

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 and only 3 simple parameters, the description covers the core functionality well. It lacks details on return format (e.g., array of account items) but the statement 'retrieves chart of accounts' implies a structured list. Caching note adds practical completeness.

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 input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds caching advice that indirectly relates to parameter use but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics 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 it retrieves a list of account items (chart of accounts) and emphasizes efficiency by doing so in one call. This distinguishes it from siblings like freee_get_item (singular) or freee_master_context, as it targets a specific entity group with a batch retrieval approach.

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 advises using this data for mapping/filtering in reports and recommends caching due to infrequent changes. However, it does not explicitly explain when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., freee_account_item_context for detailed context), leaving the agent to infer usage scope.

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