How many distinct business addresses and phones this carrier reports across FMCSA's independent records of it (census registration, licensing and insurance filings, and its own self-reported crash records). Mailing addresses are excluded — differing from the physical address there is normal.
Paid. Cheaper than either identity tool; one row, no graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usdot_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the call is paid, and it returns a single flat row rather than a graph. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, rate or cost specifics, and what the returned counts mean or how to interpret a high/low value, so behavioral coverage is only partial.
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?
Two short blocks: the core measurement is front-loaded, and the cost/output note is separated and terse. The nested parenthetical is slightly heavy but every sentence is informative, with no filler.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover invocation and result interpretation. It does identify the source records and the mailing-address exclusion, and signals a single-row result, but leaves the sole parameter undescribed and does not explain what the counts imply for consistency judgments.
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 0% and there is a single required parameter, usdot_number, which the description never mentions. The schema supplies only type (integer) and required status, so the description should clarify what identifier is expected (USDOT number format) but adds nothing.
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 states a specific resource and measurement: a count of distinct business addresses and phones a carrier reports across named FMCSA record sets (census, licensing/insurance, crash records). It also distinguishes itself from sibling identity tools by noting it is cheaper and returns 'one row, no graph,' which tells an agent this is a lightweight consistency count rather than a full identity resolution.
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?
'Paid. Cheaper than either identity tool; one row, no graph' hints at when to prefer this over check_carrier_identity or screen_carrier_identity, but the guidance is comparative and cost-focused rather than a clear when-to-use statement. There is no explicit trigger condition (e.g. 'use this to spot data conflicts before paying for full identity resolution') and no stated exclusions.
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.