float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'flexible filtering and formatting options,' it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact of generating comprehensive reports, or what the output looks like. For a complex 25-parameter tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope and capabilities. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with supporting details. Every element earns its place, though it could potentially be more structured for such a complex tool.

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 25-parameter report generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the behavioral characteristics, output format expectations beyond mentioning 'formatting options,' or how this tool relates to the many sibling report tools. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the context needed for effective tool selection and usage.

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 the schema already documents all 25 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'flexible filtering' and 'formatting options,' which are already evident from the parameter names and descriptions. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema.

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 purpose: 'generating comprehensive reports and analytics from Float data' with specific report types listed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on report generation rather than data manipulation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools like 'get-time-report' or 'get-project-report'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including specific report tools (e.g., 'get-time-report', 'get-project-report'), there's no indication whether this is a consolidated replacement, a more flexible version, or when to choose one over the other. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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