AroFlo MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent status, but the description adds valuable context: response modes (data/verbose/debug/raw), payload reduction behavior (compact/select), and the pipe-delimited query syntax. It also references external documentation for field validation, which is crucial given the openWorldHint and lack of enum constraints in the schema.

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?

Though information-dense and single-paragraph, every clause serves a purpose: resource identification, query syntax for three parameters, mode options, payload optimization, and documentation reference. No tautology or repetition present; efficiently front-loaded with the core 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?

Given 18 parameters with zero schema coverage and complex querying capabilities, the description adequately covers the critical parameters needed for operation (filtering, sorting, joining, field selection, response modes) and points to external resources for field values. 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 carries significant weight. It compensates by detailing the query syntax for 'where', 'order', and 'join' parameters (pipe-delimited format), explaining the 'mode' enum options, and documenting 'compact'/'select' usage. It omits pagination parameters (page, autoPaginate, etc.), but these are relatively self-descriptive compared to the complex query syntax it successfully documents.

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 explicitly states 'Query the AroFlo TransactionTerms zone (GET)' providing a specific verb (Query), resource (TransactionTerms zone), and HTTP method. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which query different zones (quotes, tasks, assets, 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?

The description provides detailed syntax guidance for constructing queries (pipe-delimited WHERE clauses, ORDER syntax, JOIN areas) and references external documentation for valid fields. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this specific zone versus the 40+ sibling get_* tools or the generic aroflo_query_zone.

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