float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the report returns (e.g., CSV, JSON, PDF), whether it's paginated, if there are rate limits, or if it's a real-time or cached report. For a reporting tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves a purpose without 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?

Given the complexity of a reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'people utilization report' actually contains, how results are formatted, whether it's aggregated data or detailed records, or what business context it serves. The agent must guess about the tool's behavior and output based solely on the name and parameter schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all four parameters clearly documented (start_date, end_date, people_id, department_id). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Get people utilization report' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'people utilization report', but provides no additional context about what this report contains, its format, or how it differs from other reporting tools like 'generate-report', 'get-billable-time-report', or 'get-time-report' in the sibling list. This minimal statement fails to distinguish the tool's specific purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple reporting-related sibling tools (e.g., 'generate-report', 'get-billable-time-report', 'get-time-report', 'get-project-report'), the agent receives no indication of what makes this particular report unique or when it should be selected over other options. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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