Preview a freee application action

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive hints, so the description adds value by disclosing the 'binding fingerprint' output and the preview semantics. While 'No application is changed' reinforces the readOnlyHint, the fingerprint behavior is a novel, important detail beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the main action. The description includes the key purpose, the output type, and a safety guarantee without redundancy.

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 schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient for a preview tool. It lacks explicit guidance on how the fingerprint is used with the sibling commit_action, but the sibling list and tool name make the workflow inferable, so the gap is minor.

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 the description need not restate parameters. It does add minimal context by saying 'one available approval or return action', which aligns with the enum, but it does not explain the meaning of the fingerprint or how the `id` maps to a specific application beyond the schema's 'numeric No.' This is adequate baseline.

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's function with a specific verb ('Read and preview') and resource ('one available approval or return action'). It also mentions the unique output ('returning a binding fingerprint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like freee_approval_commit_action.

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 a pre-commit preparation step ('preview', 'binding fingerprint') and emphasizes no change, which signals safe use before a commit action. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the two-phase flow 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.