accelo_list_time_externals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the domain concept and one concrete constraint (limit max 100), and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about auth requirements, default sort order, or what a returned record contains. Adequate but thin for an unannotated 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 one-line purpose, then a short clarifying paragraph, then a compact Args block. No filler sentences; the only redundancy is mild re-explanation of the domain concept.

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 list tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers parameters well but omits the return shape (default returned fields), pagination guidance beyond the max limit, and any ordering default. An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate what comes back.

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 filters keys (id, staff_id, order_by_asc/desc with sortable fields), gives a fields example, defines search scope (title, description), and notes page is 0-indexed and limit caps at 100. Minor gaps remain, such as the default values for page and limit and what 'fields' actually adds to the response.

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 (List) and resource (time externals), then defines the resource conceptually as imported calendar appointments from Google/Exchange/Outlook that can be converted to activities. That conceptual definition distinguishes it from generic siblings like accelo_list_activities without the agent needing to open a 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?

The note that externals 'can be converted to activities for scheduling and timesheets' implies a workflow context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing versus accelo_list_activities, accelo_get_time_external, or accelo_count_time_externals. Usage is only inferable.

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