create_deal

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

With annotations absent, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: '税区分は勘定科目のデフォルトを自動適用' (tax classification is automatically applied from the account item's default) and '口座指定で明細と自動紐付け' (if account is specified, it auto-links with statement). However, it does not disclose response format, side effects of partner auto-creation, or error cases, leaving 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?

The description is three concise Japanese sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main function, account item specification, tax classification, and wallet linking. There is no redundancy or filler, and the main purpose is 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?

For a create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: account item naming, automatic tax classification, and wallet linking. It does not mention response format, but given that all parameters are documented in the schema and the tool is not overly complex, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it explains that account_item is specified by name, tax classification is derived from the account item's default, and wallet_name triggers auto-linking. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter interactions, not just individual descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '取引（仕訳）を登録する' (register a transaction/journal entry). It also differentiates from siblings by describing unique behaviors like '口座指定で明細と自動紐付け' (auto-linking with statement when account is specified), which is distinct from create_invoice or list_deals.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention create_invoice for invoice creation or list_deals for querying transactions. The only implied usage is the verb '登録する' (register), so an agent has no context for selecting between similar tools.

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