float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, or how parameters interact (e.g., combining 'days_ahead' with date ranges). The lack of behavioral context makes it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering for reminders, which is already covered by 'reminder_date_from' and 'reminder_date_to' in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('milestones that have reminders set'), specifying the scope ('within a specified date range'). It distinguishes from general milestone tools like 'get-milestone' or 'list-milestones' by focusing on reminders, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get-upcoming-milestones' or 'get-overdue-milestones'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-upcoming-milestones' or 'get-overdue-milestones', which might overlap in functionality. The description implies usage for date-range filtering of reminders but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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