Vehicle Database MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions coverage scope and VIN format support, but doesn't describe what the API returns (e.g., list of sales events, timestamps, prices), error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with three sentences that each add value: purpose statement, coverage scope, and VIN format details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (sales events, dates, prices), error handling, or behavioral characteristics. While it covers input semantics well, it leaves critical gaps about the tool's behavior and output that an agent would need to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'vin', including an example. The description adds value by specifying VIN format support (17-digit and classic 5-13 digit VINs) and geographic coverage (North America), which provides important context beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 tool's purpose: to uncover sales history of a vehicle using a VIN, with coverage in North America. It specifies the verb ('uncovering') and resource ('sales history'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'auction', 'market_value_by_vin', or 'title_check' that might also provide vehicle-related information.

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 some context about coverage (North America) and VIN support, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'by_vin', 'market_value_by_vin', or 'title_check'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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