freee team attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces read-only with 'without changing freee' and hints at a dependency on a 'selected' summary, but does not disclose nuances like unsupported parameters (group_id/company_id) or UI-state dependence beyond that.

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 communicates the core action and scope without any filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and a description that does not explain what the returned data looks like, the agent lacks crucial context. The tool's behavior depends on an unspecified 'selected' summary, and the unsupported backend parameters are only mentioned in the schema, not the description, leaving the overall invocation and interpretation incomplete.

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 100%, with all three parameters already described, including the notable caveat that group_id and company_id are 'Unsupported by the Playwright backend.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'department attendance' or 'monthly attendance-monitor summary', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual clock status or approvals. However, the phrase 'selected monthly attendance-monitor summary' is ambiguous about what 'selected' refers to, slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like freee_clock_status or freee_approvals_list. It simply states what it reads, without any explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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