accelo_list_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful structural behavior (the mandatory company linkage, the contract_period → contract → company resolution path, and fields expansion), but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, pagination limits beyond 'max 100', or rate limiting.

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 the core purpose, then layers in relationship semantics and a structured Args block. The middle relationship paragraphs are slightly verbose but each conveys a non-obvious navigation rule, so little is wasted.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the entity model, filter surface, and pagination adequately. Return-shape and read-only expectations are left implicit, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates valid filter keys (id, standing, contract_type, manager, status, against_type/against_id, date_* range filters, order_by_*), and explains fields, search, page (0-indexed), and limit (max 100). Only the exact accepted values for filter keys remain undocumented.

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 with a clarifying synonym: 'List contracts (retainers) from Accelo.' This cleanly separates it from accelo_get_contract, accelo_count_contracts, and accelo_list_contract_periods.

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 strong navigational context: contracts are always 'against' a company, against_id IS the company_id, and it walks through resolving a contract_period back to its company. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when-not-to-use this one (e.g. vs accelo_list_contract_periods).

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