accelo_list_holidays

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a list operation, notes the Beta status, and describes pagination (page 0-indexed, limit max 100) and search behavior. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response structure looks like beyond the mentioned holiday fields.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an 'Args' section. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The additional context about holiday fields is useful, though slightly beyond what is strictly needed for parameter documentation.

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?

Given five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers entity fields, filtering, pagination, and search. Minor gaps remain regarding output format and permission requirements, but these are not critical for a list operation.

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 fully. It does: each parameter is explained, including filter keys (id, staff_id, date ranges, order_by options), a fields example, search scope over title, page indexing, and the limit maximum. This is comprehensive and far exceeds the schema's empty descriptions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'List holidays from Accelo'. It also clarifies what a holiday represents (staff leave/time-off entries) and distinguishes the operation from siblings like get_holiday or create_holiday via the verb 'List', though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative-tool routing is provided. The parameter documentation implies how to filter and paginate, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over accelo_get_holiday, accelo_count_holidays, or others.

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