Vultr MCP

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 the tool returns a 'List of regions where the plan is available, with region details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases, performance) and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'plan_id: The plan ID to search for (e.g., "vc2-1c-1gb").' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only specifies type: string) by clarifying it's an ID for searching and providing an example. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or valid values, keeping the score at baseline.

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: 'Find all regions where a specific plan is available.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('regions'), and the example plan_id ('vc2-1c-1gb') adds concreteness. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_plans_by_region_availability' or 'list_by_region', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_plans_by_region_availability' (which might list plans by region) or 'list_by_region' (which might list resources by region). The absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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