offers_pageWhere a maker lists its own current offers (and a model's own page where one can be built), with whether the maker lists national offers at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| make | Yes | Make, like Toyota | |
| model | No | Model, like Corolla Cross |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes a behavioral fact — that the result indicates whether the maker lists national offers at all — which is genuine context beyond the annotations. It still doesn't say what the caller receives (a link, page text, or flags), leaving the return behavior under-specified.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the phrase 'whether the maker lists national offers at all' is placed last and is the one genuinely useful detail. The nested parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.
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?
With no output schema, the description should disclose the return shape, and it only hints at it ('lists its own current offers', 'whether the maker lists national offers'). For a simple two-parameter lookup that is close to adequate, but an agent still cannot predict whether it gets a URL or offer data.
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%, so both `make` and `model` are already documented with examples in the schema. The description's distinction between maker-level and model-level pages adds a little framing but no syntax, format, or ambiguity resolution beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (a maker's official offers page, optionally model-specific) and adds a scoping datum (whether national offers are listed). However, it has no verb — it never says whether the tool retrieves a URL, fetches page content, or returns structured offers — and the parenthetical 'a model's own page where one can be built' is ambiguous. An agent can guess the domain but not the operation.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (rebate_vs_apr, compare_quotes, check_quote, state_rules). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance — the agent must infer fit purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.