freee monthly attendance status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing freee'. It adds extra behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the period parameter behavior ('Playwright selects and verifies that work month before reading') and the fallback to the currently selected month, which is useful for understanding how the tool operates.

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 with no wasted words. It states the core action, the resource, and the non-destructive nature immediately. The Japanese term '月次勤怠締め' is specific and meaningful in context, and the sentence is compact without sacrificing key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: reading a specific month and its available actions. It does not detail the output format or enumerate what 'available actions' might be, but it provides sufficient completeness for a status-checking tool among well-defined siblings. A slightly more explicit description of the returned data would justify a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the optional period parameter corresponds to a 'requested' month, while omitting it means the tool reads the 'currently selected' month. This helps the agent understand optionality and fallback behavior, going beyond the schema's straightforward pattern description.

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') with a clear resource ('personal 月次勤怠締め month') and scope ('and its available actions'). It also clarifies that the operation does not alter anything, which distinguishes it from sibling prepare/commit tools. This is a clear, unambiguous 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 read-only inspection use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like freee_monthly_prepare_action or freee_monthly_commit_action. It mentions 'without changing freee' but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so usage must be inferred.

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