freee monthly attendance approval list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds meaningful behavior: results expose explicit paymentPeriod and mapped work period, and ambiguous mapping fails closed. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies error-prone edge cases, earning a strong score.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds precisely one valuable nuance about mapping behavior. Every word earns its place; structure is optimal.

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 read-only list tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers core intent, a behavioral edge case (fail closed), and output expectations (paymentPeriod, work period). Pagination is handled in the schema's page description. It doesn't cover error messages or status interaction, but given annotations and simplicity, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 50%: the page parameter is well described in the schema, while status is only defined by enum values with no extra text. The tool description adds minimal parameter context—only 'one explicit approval-list page' restates the page intent. It does not explain how status filters results or how the mapping interacts with parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage and small extra value.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Read only 月次勤怠締め applications' (list monthly attendance approvals). It scopes to 'one explicit approval-list page' and adds a distinguishing detail about exposing paymentPeriod and mapped work period, which separates it from the general freee_approvals_list sibling. This is specific and actionable.

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 monthly attendance approvals on a specific page but never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., freee_approvals_list for general approvals) or states when NOT to use this tool. The 'fail closed' clause hints at a boundary condition, but it's not framed as a usage guideline. No exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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