accelo_list_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful domain context (what rates are, their key fields, what they are referenced by), but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, or pagination/return behavior beyond the args section.

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 compact domain explanation, then a clean Args block. Every element is functional; only mild redundancy between the prose key-fields list and the fields arg example.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the key returned fields (title, charged, standing, object). For a simple list tool with no annotations this is nearly complete, lacking only pagination/total-count behavior.

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 compensates well: it documents all three params, clarifies that page is 0-indexed, limit is capped at 100, and gives a concrete example format for fields. This meaning is absent from the bare 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List rates") and explains what a rate represents and how it is referenced (jobs, milestones, contracts, staff). This distinguishes it from accelo_get_rate and accelo_count_rates, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when/when-not guidance is given. There is no mention of when to use this list tool versus accelo_get_rate for a single rate, accelo_count_rates, or how it relates to accelo_list_* filters. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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