freee authentication status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that no credentials/secrets are returned and explains the behavior when Playwright credentials are missing, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. This helps the agent understand failure modes and safety guarantees.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no fluff. Each sentence adds distinct information: the first states what it does and a safety guarantee, the second describes the behavior in a missing-credential scenario. Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 status check with rich annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, safety guarantees, and failure mode. It could mention the success return format but that's not critical given no output schema and the clear purpose.

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?

With zero parameters, the description has nothing to compensate for; it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description lives up to that.

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 'Verify' and names the resource 'freee authentication', clearly distinguishing it from sibling status tools like freee_clock_status and freee_backend_status. It also adds the important caveat about not returning credentials, which further sharpens the purpose.

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 it should be used to check authentication state but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools or when not to use it. The conditional about missing credentials gives some context but no alternatives are mentioned.

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