accelo_get_ledger

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 says only that it fetches a ledger; it does not disclose read-only status explicitly, permissions, error behavior, or whether the response includes related records. 'Get' implies a read, but that is minimal.

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?

Short, front-loaded single sentence plus a compact Args block. No filler, though the Args lines are so terse that they sacrifice useful detail for brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so the definition should explain more about the return value and fields syntax. The scope is simple, but the description still leaves key call-time details unspecified.

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 explain parameters. It restates 'id: Ledger ID' tautologically and says 'fields: Additional fields to return' without format details such as comma-separated field names, leaving the fields parameter under-specified.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'ledger', with 'single' and 'by ID' distinguishing it from accelo_list_ledgers and accelo_count_ledgers. It stops short of naming those siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_ledgers. The retrieval-by-ID use case is implied by the tool name, but the description provides no explicit context.

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