accelo_list_contract_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list and discloses pagination limits (max 100, 0-indexed pages), but says nothing about permissions, ordering defaults, or how closed/reopened periods affect results, leaving the mutation-adjacent siblings (close/reopen_contract_period) as the only signal of state.

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?

Front-loads purpose then domain model then Args, which is well ordered. The Args block is somewhat long and partially restates schema fields, but nearly every line (filter keys, order_by values, field syntax) adds information the schema lacks.

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?

For a filtered list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the entity model, the hierarchy path to related objects, filtering, sparse field selection, and pagination. It stops short of describing the shape of a returned period, which is the main remaining gap.

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 largely does: it documents all five parameters and enumerates filter keys plus valid order_by fields. It still omits value types or accepted enum values for those filter keys, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 (list contract periods) scoped to a specific parent contract, and its domain gloss ('billing intervals within a contract (retainer)') makes it unambiguous against siblings like accelo_get_contract_period, accelo_list_contracts, and accelo_create_contract.

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?

Provides clear context for when this is the right call (you have a contract and need its billing periods) plus a navigation hint from period through contract_id to against_id. It never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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