accelo_get_contract_period

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and notes that 'fields' can return additional data, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, return format, or whether the operation is read-only in a structured sense.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words. The 'Args' block is compact and directly relevant to the two parameters.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits return shape and the format of the 'fields' parameter. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It labels 'id' as 'Contract Period ID' and 'fields' as 'Additional fields to return,' adding semantic meaning, but it omits the integer type of 'id' and the expected string format for 'fields.'

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single contract period by ID.' The word 'single' distinguishes it from list_contract_periods, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close/reopen contract period siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accelo_list_contract_periods, accelo_close_contract_period, or accelo_reopen_contract_period. The 'by ID' phrasing implies a prerequisite but does not state usage context or exclusions.

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