Vehicle Database MCP Server

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 this is an information-providing API and mentions coverage years (1999-2023), but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, 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 reasonably concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, listing warranty types covered, and specifying coverage years. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about warranty types could be more efficiently integrated, and there's some redundancy in mentioning parameters.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns complex warranty information. It mentions warranty types and coverage years but doesn't describe the structure of returned data, what specific information is provided about each warranty type, or how results are formatted. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (year, make, model). The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters ('when called by year, make and model') but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'provides information on the type and length of any vehicles warranty when called by year, make and model.' It specifies the verb ('provides information'), resource ('warranty'), and scope ('vehicles'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vehicle_maintenance' or 'vehicle_recall' that 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions coverage for manufacturers from 1999 to 2023, which is a constraint but not usage guidance. There's no mention of when to choose this over sibling tools like 'by_vin' or 'decode' for warranty information, or what makes this tool the appropriate choice.

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