accelo_list_referrals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation and documents pagination and filter keys, but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, return shape, or how many results are returned by default. The conceptual explanation of referrals is useful but leaves key behavioral traits uncovered.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, then adds a brief conceptual explanation with one illustrative example, and finishes with a structured Args section. The example earns its place by clarifying the referrer_type/against_type filter keys, though the prose could be tightened slightly.

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 simple list tool with four optional params, no nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the referral concept, and all four parameters. It is missing usage guidance and return/pagination behavior, but is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.

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, states that page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. The 'fields' parameter is only described as 'Additional fields to return', which is vague, keeping this from a 5.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('List referrals from Accelo') and then explains the concept of a referral with a concrete example using referrer_type and against_type. It is distinguishable from other list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like accelo_get_referral or accelo_count_referrals.

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?

The description explains what referrals are but offers no guidance on when to use this listing tool versus the single-referral getter or the counter. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are stated.

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