accelo_get_prospect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says it fetches by ID. It does not say what happens if the ID is missing or unknown, whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence plus a compact Args block; nothing redundant. The Args block largely restates the schema but is short enough not to bloat.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never indicates the return shape beyond implying a prospect object via 'fields: Additional fields to return'. For a two-parameter, annotation-free fetch tool this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the response.

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, and it does label both parameters ('id: Prospect ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'). However, the 'fields' semantics are shallow — no format (e.g. comma-separated names) or which fields are valid.

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'), resource ('prospect'), scope ('a single ... by ID') and clarifies the domain term with '(sale)'. That distinguishes it from accelo_list_prospects, accelo_count_prospects, and accelo_update_prospect, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus accelo_list_prospects or the other prospect siblings; the 'by ID' phrasing only implies the single-record case. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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