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 describes the tool's function (analyzing battery loss during parked periods) and the 8+ hour threshold, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how data is sourced, rate limits, or what the output contains beyond battery drop measurement.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, and parameter explanation in just three lines. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (analyzing parked periods for battery drain), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, though it could benefit from more behavioral details. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'days' parameter's purpose ('Number of days to analyze') and providing the default value (14). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints like minimum/maximum values.

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 specific action ('Vampire drain analysis — battery loss while parked overnight') and the resource (Tesla car battery). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on parked periods with battery drop measurement, unlike tools for charging, driving, climate control, or other functions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Checks for periods where the car was parked (no drives) for 8+ hours and measures battery drop.' This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that handle active states like driving or charging. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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