Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations confirm read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the specific safety data categories returned (alerts, hunting overlap, emergency support), giving the agent clear expectations about the content and utility of the response.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'Return'. Every clause earns its place: 'park safety context' establishes the domain, the three enumerated items specify the content, and 'trip window' signals the temporal parameters. No redundancy or boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively compensates by detailing the specific safety information returned. However, it fails to explain the critical input constraint that park_id and park_name are mutually exclusive (oneOf), which is necessary for correct tool invocation.

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 coverage is 50% (start_date and end_date documented; park_id and park_name lack descriptions). The description references 'trip window,' which maps to the date parameters, but provides no guidance on the mutually exclusive park_id versus park_name parameters or the oneOf constraint required for successful invocation.

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 returns safety-specific information (alerts, hunting overlap, emergency support) for a trip window, using a specific verb+resource pattern. While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_weather or get_park_details through its specific content focus, it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 through the phrase 'for a given trip window,' suggesting temporal planning use cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_park_details or check_availability, and does not mention prerequisites like requiring valid park identification.

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