afl_cfs_call

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the automatic minting of the anonymous x-media-mis-token, the pattern of provider IDs (CD_M*/CD_R*/...), and the need to map integer IDs. It also explicitly states 'Auth: none needed,' aligning with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses four short sentences to convey scope, token behavior, ID mapping, and reference to the operations list. The 'Returns:' and 'Auth:' lines are terse but informative, with no wasted words.

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 generic call tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it calls, how to discover operations, how to handle path params, and the token requirement. It stops short of explaining error cases or return structure beyond 'JSON object,' but given the openWorldHint and reference to the catalogue, it is adequate.

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?

While the schema already documents the three parameters (operation, path_params, query_params) with 100% coverage, the description enriches them by explaining that operation names come from the catalogue resource, path_params use provider IDs, and query_params are documented in the catalogue. This adds practical meaning beyond the dry schema text.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Call any of the AFL CFS premium operations' with a specific URL base. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic call tool for premium operations, while siblings like afl_competitions_list or afl_match_get target specific AFL resources.

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?

It provides concrete guidance: 'Read afl://cfs/operations for the full op list' and explains how to map integer IDs via idmap endpoints. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over the dedicated AFL sibling tools, though the 'premium operations' scope implies it.

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