float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, or any behavioral context. For even a simple retrieval tool, this leaves the agent guessing about what to expect from the operation.

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%, with the single parameter 'task_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The allocation ID (task_id in Float API)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific allocation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-allocations' or 'create-allocation', but the specificity of 'detailed information about a specific allocation' implies a single-item retrieval versus listing.

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 like 'list-allocations' or 'get-project-task'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit direction.

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