AroFlo MCP

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

Adds valuable implementation details beyond annotations: specifies it uses 'parent QuoteLineItems only' to avoid double counting children, and highlights 'Credits, Extras & Variations' section. Correctly aligns with readOnlyHint=true (audit operation). Could improve by mentioning data source scope or pagination behavior.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose (sentence 1), followed by critical implementation detail (sentence 2) and special feature highlight (sentence 3). 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?

Adequate for understanding the tool's analytical purpose given the output schema exists, but insufficient for invocation given zero parameter documentation. With 20 optional parameters and no required fields, the description should indicate key identification methods (e.g., 'provide jobNumber or projectId') or filtering strategies.

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 across 20 complex parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately. While it implicitly references quote-related parameters via 'quote assemblies', it provides no guidance on identifying projects (jobNumber vs projectId vs projectRefno), date filter formats, matchThreshold purpose, or mode enum differences.

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?

Excellent specificity with verb 'audit' and clear resource scope (project labour hours vs quote allowed hours). Explicitly distinguishes from generic get/list siblings by specifying planned-vs-actual breakdown by task and quote assembly handling.

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?

Implies usage context through specificity (quote-linked budget auditing, variations handling), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance vs sibling reporting tools like aroflo_report_open_projects_with_task_hours. No prerequisites or alternative selection criteria stated.

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