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 states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recurring' specifically entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination defaults, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or default behaviors). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all recurring team holidays'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-team-holidays' or 'get-upcoming-team-holidays', which appear to be related but distinct operations.

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 like 'list-team-holidays' or 'get-upcoming-team-holidays'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose appropriately among similar tools.

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