freee application list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about scope (current account) and default status (pending), but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination mechanics or rate limits. This is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the scope, and the default behavior.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and a clear schema, the description is adequate. It tells what the tool does and its default, while the schema covers pagination and status filtering. It does not explicitly mention pagination or filterable statuses, but these are inferable from the schema, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the tool's straightforward list nature.

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 50%: the 'page' parameter is well-described, while 'status' lacks a description. The tool description mentions the default status (pending), which provides minimal parameter context, but it does not explain the meaning of each status value or add details about the page parameter beyond what the schema already states. The description offers limited compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource as 'applications visible in the current account's approval workflow.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'freee_approval_detail' (single item) and 'freee_personal_applications_list' (personal applications), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It clearly states the tool's purpose without being tautological.

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 for listing approval workflow applications and notes the default pending status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related list tools (e.g., freee_monthly_approvals_list) or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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