accelo_list_ledgers

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 does add useful context: the accounting nature of ledgers, that they sync with external systems like Xero/QuickBooks, and the key returned fields (title, code, standing, parent_id, comment). However, it does not state permissions, rate limits, or default page size behavior.

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-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact domain gloss, then a well-organized Args list where each parameter gets a single informative line. Sized appropriately for a 5-parameter list tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the important return shape by naming key fields, and it covers filtering, search, field selection, and pagination. Adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly; only permissions/defaults are missing.

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 allowed filter keys and order_by fields, gives a fields example ('code,comment'), defines search scope (title, code), notes page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. Minor gap: the accepted values for 'standing' are not given.

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 ('List') and resource ('account ledgers'), and adds a domain gloss explaining what a ledger is (accounting codes for invoicing/reporting). This makes it distinguishable from accelo_get_ledger and accelo_count_ledgers by implication, though it never names those siblings 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?

It describes the filtering/search/pagination surface ('search over title, code', 'filters: id, code, parent_id, standing'), which implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to accelo_get_ledger vs accelo_count_ledgers. Usage is left to inference.

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