Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations indicate read-only/non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context about the ranking algorithm (group fit, amenities, drive time, price) and scope limitations ('across supported parks'), though it doesn't mention pagination behavior or empty result handling.

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 single sentence efficiently packs the verb, resource, key parameters (date range), ranking dimensions, and scope without filler, placing the most critical information (finding ranked campsites) upfront.

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?

While adequate for a search tool, the description lacks output format details and doesn't fully address the complexity of 14 parameters with low schema coverage; it mentions ranking criteria but doesn't explain how results are structured or truncated.

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 only 36% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by semantically mapping 'date range', 'group fit', 'amenities', 'drive time', and 'price' to corresponding parameters, but leaves many boolean filters (ada_accessible, campfire, electric, pets_allowed) and pagination params (limit, offset) undocumented.

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 finds campsite options with specific ranking criteria (group fit, amenities, drive time, price), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_parks or find_ev_charging through its specific resource focus and ranking behavior.

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 like check_availability (for specific site availability) or search_parks (for general park information), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied date range.

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