accelo_list_object_budget_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation and discloses pagination semantics (0-indexed page, max 100 per page), but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or default ordering.

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 with the action and resource, then a useful definition and an Args block. Every sentence carries weight, though the material-definition paragraph is slightly verbose for a list tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything. It covers purpose, resource meaning, and parameters well, but leaves gaps around result shape, permissions, default filters, and how it relates to sibling budget/material tools.

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 does well: it enumerates the filter keys (id, budget_id, against_type, against_id, order_by_asc/desc), explains page is 0-indexed, and sets the limit cap at 100. It adds substantial meaning over the bare schema, though each filter key's exact semantics remain unexplained.

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 (materials/line items) scoped to object budgets, and even explains what a material is (physical goods, licences, non-time cost items) with its key attributes. It is clearly distinguishable from create/update/get siblings by the 'list' verb, but it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to route between them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accelo_list_object_budget_services or accelo_get_object_budget, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The resource definition implies context but provides no actual usage routing.

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