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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'various filters' but doesn't describe what the report contains (e.g., aggregated data, detailed entries), output format details beyond the schema's enum, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a reporting tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though it could be more specific about the report type to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the report output looks like (structure, data fields), how results are formatted in different output types, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective 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 fully documents all 8 parameters with clear descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'various filters', which is already evident from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 time tracking report with various filters' states the basic purpose (retrieving a time report) but is vague about what specific report it provides. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-billable-time-report' or 'get-people-utilization-report' that also retrieve time-related reports, leaving ambiguity about which report type this tool returns.

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. With multiple report-related sibling tools (e.g., 'get-billable-time-report', 'get-people-utilization-report', 'generate-report'), the description offers no context about what makes this report unique or when it should be selected over other reporting tools.

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