Preview a freee application action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'No application is changed.' It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns a binding fingerprint, may bypass per-item confirmation under exact instructions or policies, and performs safety checks that can block the item. The fingerprint is mentioned but its format and lifecycle are not explained, which keeps this from being a 5.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add necessary behavioral constraints, but the final sentence is somewhat dense with domain terms and conditional logic. Overall every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly clearer for an agent scanning quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably explains that a binding fingerprint is returned and that no changes are applied. It also covers the important cross-application consistency check for 休暇 and 勤務時間修正. It does not fully explain what the fingerprint is or how the agent should use it afterward, but given the absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already fully documents id and action, including the enum values for approve and return. The description does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond confirming the action types are 'approval or return action.' This matches the baseline of 3 when structured schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read and preview one available approval or return action.' It also distinguishes this from the commit sibling by explicitly saying 'No application is changed' and framing the tool as a preview that returns a fingerprint. This clearly separates it from freee_approval_commit_action and other prepare/commit siblings.

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 conveys when this prepare step is appropriate: before committing an action, especially when an exact instruction or active scoped policy lets the agent skip per-item confirmation. It also includes a specific pre-approval check for 休暇 applications against same-date 勤務時間修正 entries. It does not explicitly name 'use freee_approval_commit_action next,' but the preview-vs-commit distinction is clear from the wording and sibling context.

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