freee_multiyear_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using freee native multi-year trial balance APIs and returning certain data, but does not specify if it is read-only, required permissions, or how months interact with fiscal years, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences, each delivering value: first sentence states purpose, second describes output, third adds quality claim. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It does so adequately (account-level data, current/last/optional two-years prior, year-on-year changes and percentages). Could be clearer on how fiscal periods are applied, but sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 minimal beyond schema—only mentions reportType and years—but doesn't clarify the role of startMonth/endMonth or companyId defaults. No significant enhancement.

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 retrieves multi-year comparison reports for P/L or BS using native APIs. It distinguishes from siblings like single-period reports by specifying multi-year scope and mentions account-level data with year-on-year changes.

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 says to use for annual growth analysis and claims greater accuracy over manual comparisons, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for single-year reports.

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