freee_item_suggestion_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool retrieves and aggregates item usage history, ranks by frequency, and recommends unit prices and tax codes. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the actions imply no modification.

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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 explains the conceptual output (ranked list with recommendations) but lacks specific details about the exact structure. It is mostly complete for a suggestion tool, covering retrieval, aggregation, and usage intent.

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 provides full descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by clarifying the relationship between partner_id and partner_name, and explaining the category parameter's purpose beyond its schema 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 it retrieves item suggestion context for a partner, including master list and usage history. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freee_get_items by focusing on ranked suggestions with recommended prices and tax codes, and explicitly ties it to bookkeeping for new deals or invoices.

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 partner_id or partner_name to specify the partner and notes the tool is useful for consistent bookkeeping when creating deals or invoices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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