freee_journal_consistency_check

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool detects specific inconsistencies and returns severity-sorted findings with recommendations. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects, though 'check' strongly implies no mutation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific detection examples. It is concise and well-structured, with no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (severity-sorted findings with recommendations). For a checking tool, this is complete and provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add meaningful new information beyond the schema, such as constraints or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks journal entry consistency across deals, with specific detection examples (e.g., partners using multiple account items, tax category inconsistencies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freee_tagging_consistency_check by focusing on journal consistency rather than tagging.

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 usage for consistency checking but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, such as when to use freee_monthly_closing_check instead. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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