accelo_get_affiliation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID does not exist, or whether the resource is read-only. 'Get' implies a read, but that is the only signal.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core operation, followed by brief argument notes. No wasted words, though the 'Args:' block is a boilerplate style that adds little beyond what the schema already shows.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot infer the ID type beyond integer, the fields string syntax, or error behavior, and there is no return-value guidance to fill the missing output schema.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists the two parameters by name ('id: Affiliation ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'), which is mildly helpful, but it does not explain the expected format of 'id' or what the 'fields' string should contain (e.g., comma-separated field names). This leaves the agent guessing on the value syntax.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single affiliation by ID), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like accelo_list_affiliations and accelo_count_affiliations. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the singular 'single affiliation by ID' framing makes the retrieval-by-ID use case obvious.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives such as accelo_list_affiliations for browsing or accelo_count_affiliations for counting. The tool name implies my-usecase-only retrieval, but the description itself carries no routing guidance.

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