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. It states 'List all available time off types' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters fully covered in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral details, or output expectations. The agent can infer basic functionality but must rely on schema for parameters and trial for output.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per-page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details 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 action ('List') and resource ('all available time off types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-time-off-type' (singular retrieval) or 'create-time-off-type' (creation), but the verb 'List' implies a collection operation rather than individual retrieval or mutation.

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. With siblings like 'get-time-off-type' (singular retrieval) and 'list-time-off-types' (identical name, likely a duplicate), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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