accelo_list_affiliations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains the data model (a contact can hold multiple affiliations; affiliations are referenced by issues, prospects, and invoices) and the max page size, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or ordering defaults.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the domain model and then a compact Args block. The filter-key list is dense but each item is functional; only minor tightening is possible.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers both the entity's meaning and its query surface. It could note the default page/limit values and return shape, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates concrete filter keys, the fields expansion syntax ("company(),contact(),position"), the fields searched by `search`, and the page/limit semantics including the 100 cap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List affiliations") and immediately glosses the domain term as "contact-company links." The 'list' verb cleanly distinguishes it from accelo_get_affiliation, accelo_count_affiliations, and the mutation 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?

It never states when to use this tool versus accelo_get_affiliation, accelo_count_affiliations, or the filter-based siblings. Usage is only implied by the presence of filters/pagination, with no conditional routing or exclusions offered.

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