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 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, whether data is real-time or cached, what happens with invalid inputs, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential qualifiers ('for a specific person', 'including balance and usage'). Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output information. For a read operation with good schema coverage, this is the minimum viable description but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'for a specific person' which aligns with the required people_id parameter, and 'including balance and usage' which relates to the output rather than inputs. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'time off summary for a specific person' with specific content 'including balance and usage'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-timeoff' (which likely retrieves individual time off requests) and 'get-person-logged-time-summary' (which covers logged time rather than time off). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get-timeoff' (which might list individual time off entries) or 'get-person-logged-time-summary' (which covers different data). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria.

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