accelo_list_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it documents pagination semantics (page is 0-indexed, limit max 100), the fields-expansion mechanism with sample syntax, and a search that covers title only. It omits permissions/auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 one-line purpose before the explanatory paragraph and the Args block. Every section earns its place, though the domain-context paragraph is slightly verbose for a list operation.

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 list tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description covers all parameters and the domain meaning of a quote. It does not describe the shape of returned quote objects, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 the valid filter keys, explains the fields expansion syntax with concrete examples, states search scope, notes page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. Filter value types and the exact shape of the filters dict remain 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 quotes (proposals) from Accelo') and adds genuine domain context by explaining that quotes are proposals created against a prospect with service/material line items and pricing. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like accelo_get_quote or accelo_count_quotes.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter keys (standing, status, against_type, date ranges) which hint at browse/filter scenarios, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no named alternative such as accelo_get_quote for a single record. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing guidance.

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