Preview a freee personal application withdrawal

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

While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable context: it returns a 'binding fingerprint' and specifically does not withdraw, plus it targets 'pending' applications. No contradiction with 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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and result. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise while retaining essential details.

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 simple single-parameter schema, strong annotations, and clear description of the return value ('binding fingerprint'), the description is largely complete. The term 'binding fingerprint' is not elaborated, but the tool's role in a prepare/commit flow is evident.

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 schema description fully covers the only parameter (id) with a clear explanation ('The numeric No. shown in the freee application list'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's action ('Read'), the specific resource ('one exact pending personal application'), and the outcome ('return a binding fingerprint without withdrawing it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commit_withdraw, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use as a preview step before withdrawal ('without withdrawing it'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It lacks direct comparison to other tools such as prepare_cancel or detail, leaving usage guidance largely inferred.

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