accelo_list_issues

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure by listing issue attributes (assignee, affiliation, class, priority) and the relational model (issues are 'against' a company or job). It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or permissions, but it does provide substantial context about the data model that is essential for correct interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically structured to explain the relational model, list attributes, and document arguments. It is appropriately sized and every sentence serves a purpose, though the bullet points could be slightly more compact.

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 the complexity of the filter object and the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of covering the necessary context: it explains the relational model, lists key fields, and documents all parameters. It could be improved by noting pagination defaults or response format, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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. It documents all five parameters in detail: it enumerates the allowed filter keys, clarifies that search operates over the subject field, and specifies that page is 0-indexed and limit has a max of 100. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

State a specific verb and resource: 'List issues (tickets) from Accelo.' It clarifies the domain terminology (issues = tickets) and distinguishes semantics from siblings like accelo_list_tasks or accelo_list_activities by defining what an issue is and how it relates to a company or job.

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?

It provides implied usage context through the against_type resolution logic, which tells the agent how to relate issues to companies or jobs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like accelo_count_issues or when to use filters such as status or date ranges, leaving some ambiguity.

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