accelo_list_prospects

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. 'List' implies a read, and it does disclose pagination defaults (page 0-indexed, limit max 100) and the affiliation→company data relationship. However, it says nothing about the response envelope, total counts, or what happens when filters don't match, leaving real behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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, then the affiliation/fields relationship, then an Args block — a clean, scannable structure. It is slightly padded by the nested affiliation_id → get affiliation → company_id chain, but every section still earns its place.

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 zero-annotation, zero schema-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers inputs well but never describes what a prospect record contains or how pagination results are returned. It is adequate for invocation but incomplete for an agent that must interpret the response.

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 the filter keys (id, standing, weighting, success, affiliation, manager, prospect_type, status, prospect_probability, company, date bounds, order_by) plus fields, search, page, and limit semantics. Several filter keys (standing, weighting, success, prospect_probability) are named but not explained, and the format of date bounds / order_by is unspecified.

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 and resource ('List prospects (sales) from Accelo'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from accelo_get_prospect / accelo_count_prospects / accelo_create_prospect. It adds useful domain framing about prospects linking to companies, but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings beyond the obvious list-vs-get distinction.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: how to reach the client contact via fields="affiliation()", and that you can instead filter by company with the 'company' filter. It does not spell out when to prefer this over alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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