float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'paginated list' and 'advanced filtering options', which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large result sets. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context and key filtering capabilities. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (retrieving paginated lists with filtering) is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise by combining ideas, but overall it's well-structured.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose and basic usage but lacks details about return format (though implied by 'paginated list'), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, more context about result structure or limitations would be helpful, but it meets minimum viable standards.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some value by mentioning 'filtering by department, role, and active status' (matching three of the six parameters), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter information in the description.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated list of all team members'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools (like list-accounts, list-clients) by specifying it's for 'team members' with 'advanced filtering options'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-person' (singular retrieval) or other people-related tools, which prevents 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 clear context for when to use this tool ('team management, resource planning, and organizational oversight'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. It mentions 'advanced filtering options' which hints at capabilities beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like 'get-person' for single records or other filtering tools), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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