get_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature through the verb 取得 and the list scope through 一覧, but it does not mention any additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or required permissions. For a zero-parameter list operation this is minimally adequate.

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, short sentence that front-loads the scope and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent that the tool returns a list of companies for the account. It does not specify the structure of each company object, but for a simple list retrieval with no configuration, an agent can invoke it correctly with the information provided.

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 input schema has no properties and thus 100% schema coverage is trivial. With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not. The baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb (取得, 'retrieve') and a specific resource (事業所一覧, 'list of business offices'), and it states the scope (freeeアカウントに紐づく, 'associated with the freee account'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_company, which targets a single company.

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 conveys that this tool returns all companies for the account, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_company or other list tools, though the plural naming makes the intent fairly clear.

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