float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination support and advanced filtering, which are useful beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response structure, leaving gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the third adds behavioral detail (pagination). There is no wasted verbiage or 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and pagination, but lacks details on response format, error cases, or authentication requirements. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance for a read operation with multiple filters.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities ('advanced filtering options') and pagination context, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 projects'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'advanced filtering options' and 'pagination for large project datasets', which differentiates it from simpler list tools like list-accounts or list-clients that might not have these features.

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 on when to use this tool ('for project overview, status tracking, and finding specific projects by client or status'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., get-project for single project details), missing full sibling differentiation.

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