freee_partner_analysis

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 describes aggregation logic and outputs, implying read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or edge cases. The description adds value beyond the schema but leaves some transparency gaps.

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?

Description is two sentences: first bullet-lists outputs, second gives use cases. It is front-loaded with purpose, contains no redundant information, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of outputs and use cases. It lists four components that will be returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could mention return format or example values for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists outputs that relate to parameters (e.g., top N from 'topN') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions for each parameter. It provides context but no significant additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'revenue/expense by partner with concentration risk', and lists four detailed outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'freee_cost_analysis' or 'freee_segment_pnl' by focusing on partner-level aggregation and concentration risk metrics.

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 includes explicit use cases ('customer profitability analysis and revenue concentration risk assessment'), but does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives among siblings. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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