AroFlo MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld; description adds valuable behavioral context including the GET method confirmation, payload reduction options (compact/select), debugging modes (data/verbose/debug/raw), and references external documentation 'aroflo://docs/api/<slug>' for valid field values. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely information-dense with zero waste. Single paragraph covers: purpose, three complex parameter syntaxes, type handling, mode options, payload optimization, and documentation references. Every clause earns its place.

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 complex query tool with 18 parameters and nested objects, the description appropriately delegates field validation details to the referenced external resource ('aroflo://docs/api/<slug>') while covering the critical query interface. Output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting the complex query syntax for 'where' (pipe-delimited), 'order', and 'join' parameters, including format examples and type flexibility (string vs array). Also clarifies 'mode' enum values/default and 'compact' purpose. Does not document pagination controls (page/pageSize) but these are relatively self-explanatory.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Query the AroFlo TrackingCentres zone (GET)' with specific verb and resource. The entity name 'TrackingCentres' clearly distinguishes it from 40+ sibling tools targeting different entities (tasks, assets, clients, etc.).

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?

Provides clear context on HOW to use (pipe-delimited WHERE clauses, ORDER syntax, JOIN areas, mode options) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling getters. However, the entity-specific naming and detailed query syntax guidance effectively communicate appropriate usage scenarios.

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