accelo_get_time_external

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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the retrieval itself: no permission requirements, no behavior when the ID does not exist, no note on what data is returned. For a read tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is essentially absent.

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 core action in the first sentence. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but adds no padding or redundancy.

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 definition leaves meaningful gaps: the nature of the returned record and the format of the 'fields' argument are unexplained. For a simple get-by-id tool this is thin.

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 for both parameters. 'id: Time External ID' merely restates the name, and 'fields: Additional fields to return' is vague, giving no syntax, separator convention, or examples for specifying 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single time external') and the lookup key (by ID), which is enough for an agent to know it is a single-record retrieval. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_time_externals or explain what a 'time external' is.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer accelo_list_time_externals or accelo_convert_time_external_to_activity, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the name.

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