mcp-teslamate-fleet

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 mentions using 'personal 30-day average efficiency and current battery level,' which adds useful context about data sources. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or how it handles errors (e.g., invalid destinations). The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral context and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, data sources, and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, auth needs) and doesn't explain the output (though an output schema exists, reducing this burden). For a cost-estimation tool with personal data, more context on limitations or assumptions would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'destination' as a city/address/place name, 'gas_price' with a default from an environment variable, and 'mpg_equivalent' with a similar default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify units (e.g., dollars per gallon) or validation rules (e.g., format for 'destination').

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: 'Estimate trip cost to a destination — kWh, cost, range check.' It specifies the verb ('estimate') and resource ('trip cost'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'tesla_savings' or 'tesla_efficiency' by focusing on destination-based cost estimation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'tesla_charging_by_location' might overlap in some contexts).

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 implies usage context by stating 'Uses your personal 30-day average efficiency and current battery level,' suggesting it's for trip planning based on personal vehicle data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tesla_savings' or 'tesla_efficiency,' and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing prior data collection).

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