Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations confirm readOnly/destructive hints, so description's burden is lower. It adds valuable behavioral scope distinction ('on-site' vs 'nearby public') not present in annotations. However, it omits details about the return format, pagination, or whether availability is real-time vs static.

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 18-word sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and resource, with filter capabilities appended 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?

Adequate for a search tool with 8 parameters, but gaps remain given the oneOf constraint complexity and temporal filtering parameters (start_date/end_date) that are unmentioned. No output schema exists, but description does not need to explain return values.

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 low (38%). Description compensates partially by naming 'connector, power, and network filters', implicitly documenting 3 parameters. However, it fails to explain the critical oneOf requirement (park_id OR park_name required), the purpose of date parameters (likely availability windows), or radius_miles (search radius).

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?

Clear verb 'Return' and resource 'charging options/stations' with specific scope 'for a park'. Distinguishes from siblings (find_campsites, get_weather, etc.) via the EV charging domain, though could explicitly contrast with general 'search_parks' tool.

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?

Implies usage context ('for a park') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Does not clarify when to use park_id vs park_name or how this relates to check_availability for the same park.

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