accelo_list_object_budget_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether results are paginated (beyond listing page/limit args), whether authentication scopes are required, or what the response shape looks like. 'List' implies a safe read, but this is left implicit rather than declared.

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 two-sentence explainer of what a service is, then the Args block. Efficient, though the conceptual explainer is somewhat verbose for a list endpoint and could be terser.

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 4-param listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key gaps: it doesn't describe return fields, default sort order, or authentication requirements. The Args block is the only substantive content and does not cover the gaps that annotations would normally fill.

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 has to compensate, and it partially does: it documents the filters dict keys (id, budget_id, against_type, against_id, order_by), and page/limit semantics including 'max 100'. However, 'fields' is only glossed as 'Additional fields to return' and the descriptions are not typed (e.g., order_by direction). Adequate but incomplete for a 0%-coverage 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (services from object budgets), with a parenthetical definition ('time-based line items') and a follow-up sentence establishing what a service is. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like accelo_list_object_budget_materials and accelo_list_object_budgets.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer this is a listing endpoint by the verb, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget_id) or alternatives (materials list, budgets list).

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