afl_statspro_call

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds useful context: the anonymous x-media-mis-token is minted automatically, path params use provider IDs (CD_S*/CD_R*/CD_I*), and it points to a catalogue resource. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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. Every sentence provides distinct value: the API base path, token requirement, provider ID convention, catalogue pointer, and return type. No filler or redundancy.

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 dispatcher tool with high complexity, the description covers the essentials: what it calls, where to find the operation list, token requirements, and path parameter conventions. It does not describe error behavior or response schema, but the input schema and catalogue resource fill those gaps, and no output schema exists to require more detail.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds specific guidance that path params use provider ID formats (CD_S*/CD_R*/CD_I*), and references the catalogue resource for discovering valid operation names, which enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 it calls 'any of the AFL StatsPro operations' with the specific API base path, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from dedicated AFL tools (like afl_competition_get) by being a generic dispatcher, and directs users to a catalogue resource for operation names.

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 implies usage through 'Call any of the AFL StatsPro operations' and 'Read afl://statspro/operations for the list,' giving context on how to discover operations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the many dedicated AFL sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred alternatives.

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