freee personal application detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the tool's special reporting of withdrawal/cancellation availability, which is not inferable from structured data alone.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and unique purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the read purpose and the key reporting behavior, though it does not detail error cases or exact return format, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter ('The numeric No. shown in the freee application list'). The tool description does not add further parameter detail, but the schema already carries the semantic load, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifically states the action ('Read one application'), the resource ('application submitted by the current employee'), and a unique behavior (report whether withdrawal/cancellation is available). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list, prepare, or commit actions.

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 when needing details and availability status of a single application, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives like 'use freee_personal_applications_list to list all'. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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