Preview a freee clock action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it returns a 'binding fingerprint' and explicitly states that no punch is created. This helps the agent understand the tool's role and side effects without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core behavior, return value, and side-effect absence without any redundant wording. Every word earns its place; it is concise yet informative.

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 preview tool with strong annotations and a simple parameter set, the description adequately covers the purpose (read and preview), output (binding fingerprint), and the fact that it is non-mutating. It does not explain the fingerprint's downstream use or the Playwright backend limitation for company_id, but these are partly covered by annotations and the schema. Given no output schema, the description gives enough context to use 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?

The tool description does not elaborate on parameters; it simply says 'a punch action' without explaining the action enum or the company_id field. Schema description coverage is 50% — the required 'action' parameter has no description in the schema, and while its enum is self-documenting, its exact semantics are not explained. The company_id parameter's 'unsupported by Playwright backend' note appears only in the schema, not in the description, so the description provides no added meaning.

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 specifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read and preview one currently available punch action, returning a binding fingerprint.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like freee_clock_commit_action (which would actually create the punch) and freee_clock_status (which likely reports current state). The title 'Preview a freee clock action' reinforces 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 a safe, no-op preview by stating 'No punch is created,' which hints that this tool is for dry-run validation before committing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with freee_clock_commit_action or freee_clock_status. Usage guidance is present but implicit, not directly stated.

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