accelo_get_division

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only a '(Beta)' marker; it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid or missing IDs, or what the returned division contains. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and parameters enumerated after. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but costs little.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do much more to describe behavior and parameters. As written it leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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, but the Args section merely restates the schema ('id: Division ID') with no format, type, or lookup guidance. 'fields: Additional fields to return' adds slight meaning but does not explain accepted values or 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 and resource ('Get a single division by ID'), which clearly separates it from siblings accelo_list_divisions and accelo_count_divisions. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the singular-get semantics are 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus accelo_list_divisions or accelo_count_divisions, and no prerequisites or context for when a division ID lookup is appropriate. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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