freee application detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which robustly convey the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the data fields returned (applicant, dates, content, reason, comments, approval route, automatic checks), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is acceptable given strong annotations, but the extra context is modest.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Read one application, including applicant, dates, content, reason, comments, approval route, and automatic checks.' Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no complex return schema.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and covers the main purpose. However, it does not explain what 'automatic checks' means or how to obtain the 'id' beyond the schema hint, leaving minor gaps. Still, it is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' fully described as 'The numeric No. shown in the freee application list.' The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies without any boost from additional parameter clarifications.

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 begins with 'Read one application,' which is a specific verb and resource, and explicitly limits scope to a single item. It lists detailed contents (applicant, dates, content, reason, comments, approval route, automatic checks), distinguishing it from sibling tool freee_approvals_list (which likely lists multiple applications). This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 when a user needs full details of a single application, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like freee_approvals_list or the approval action tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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