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. 'List all departments' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior (though the schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether archived departments are included by default. The description lacks crucial operational context for a listing tool.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'all departments' means (active only? includes archived?), doesn't mention pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), and provides no context about the return format. The agent lacks crucial information to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, providing full documentation for all three parameters (active, page, per-page). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 'List all departments' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('departments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-department' (singular retrieval) or 'create-department' (creation), which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when to use 'list-departments' versus 'get-department' (for single department retrieval) or how it relates to other list tools like 'list-accounts' or 'list-people'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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