accelo_list_invoice_line_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the (Beta) status and the max-100 page size, which are genuinely useful behavioral notes, but is silent on authentication, permission requirements, default sort behavior, and total-result/pagination characteristics beyond limit.

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 purpose before an Args block, and every sentence adds value. The Args inventory is slightly dense but well organized and not padded.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool with 5 optional parameters, the definition covers purpose, scoping, and each parameter adequately. It does not describe the return shape, which matters more here since there is no output schema, but the resource-composition sentence partially compensates.

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 it largely does: it enumerates filter keys (id, invoice_id, ledger_id, tax_id, quantity, rate, total, ordering, order_by_asc/desc), gives a fields example, and clarifies page is 0-indexed and limit max 100. Minor gaps remain (e.g., accepted search syntax, field syntax rules), but most parameters gain meaning 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 invoice line items from Accelo') and adds a definitional sentence explaining what a line item is (quantity, rate, tax, total, parent links). This distinguishes it from siblings like accelo_count_invoice_line_items and accelo_get_invoice_line_item by verb semantics, though it never names them explicitly.

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 a concrete scoping pattern: 'Traverse from an invoice via filters={"invoice_id": <id>}', which tells the agent how to obtain results in a meaningful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over accelo_get_invoice_line_item or accelo_count_invoice_line_items, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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