accelo_list_purchases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose concrete constraints — page is 0-indexed and limit is capped at 100 — which is real, useful operational context. However it says nothing about whether results are ordered by default, what the response envelope looks like, or that the operation is a non-mutating read.

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 purpose sentence and the one-sentence domain definition are front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block — nothing is redundant. The key-fields line is slightly decorative but still earns its place by naming the return surface.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool with zero annotation coverage, the description covers resource meaning, every parameter, and pagination constraints. Missing only return-shape details (e.g. whether a total count or cursor accompanies results) and default ordering, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 largely does: it enumerates filter keys (id, owner_id, creator_id, affiliation_id, date_purchased_before/after, order_by_asc/desc and sortable fields), explains fields as additional fields with an example, defines search as title search, and gives page/limit semantics. It falls short only on filter value formats and how multiple filters combine.

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 purchases from Accelo') and then defines the domain object — costs incurred when completing jobs, issues, or contracts — which distinguishes purchases from the neighboring expenses, invoices, and payments list tools. An agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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 call this versus accelo_count_purchases or accelo_get_purchase, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The list semantics imply read access to a collection, but nothing in the text routes the agent between alternatives.

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