mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by calculating savings, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what data sources it uses (e.g., historical driving data). The description lacks details on output format, error handling, or side effects, which are critical for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool and explaining parameters. However, the structure could be slightly improved by separating the purpose and args more clearly (e.g., with bullet points), but it remains efficient without wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., authentication, data sources) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps persist, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'gas_price' is the price per gallon with default sources, and 'mpg_equivalent' is the comparable gas vehicle MPG with defaults. This clarifies the purpose and units of both parameters, compensating fully for the schema's lack of descriptions and providing essential context for correct usage.

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: 'Gas savings scorecard — how much you've saved vs a gas car.' This specifies the verb ('savings scorecard') and resource (comparison to gas car), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'tesla_trip_cost' or 'tesla_efficiency', which might also involve cost/savings calculations, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 default values from environment variables but doesn't clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'tesla_trip_cost' or 'tesla_efficiency', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among related tools.

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