accelo_list_divisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full load. It discloses the Beta status, the pagination model (0-indexed pages, max 100 per page), and the expandable-fields behavior, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, total counts, or whether results are read-only.

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 action in sentence one, then a short gloss, then a compact Args block. Every line carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the params in prose that the schema also shows structurally.

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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers filtering, field expansion, and pagination limits adequately. It does not describe the shape of a returned division or what 'standing'/'ordering' values are valid, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it documents all four params, lists the filter keys (id, title, standing, order_by_asc/desc), gives a fields example, notes page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. That is meaningfully beyond the bare schema.

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+resource ('List divisions from Accelo') and adds a one-sentence gloss on what a division represents. It clearly separates itself from siblings like accelo_get_division and accelo_count_divisions by naming a batch listing, though it never explicitly says so.

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 and no reference to the closely related accelo_get_division or accelo_count_divisions tools. The (Beta) marker gives some context, but an agent must infer that this is the bulk-retrieval option.

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