Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries reduced burden for safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'upcoming' implies future-date filtering, 'viable' suggests availability validation logic, and 'for a group' implies aggregation or multi-site coordination. However, it omits what the return value contains (dates? site lists?), pagination limits (num_weekends max 12), or cache/staleness behavior.

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 structure is exemplary: front-loaded action ('Find upcoming weekend date options...'), core value proposition ('viable campsite availability for a group'), and trailing options ('optionally filtered by...'). Zero redundancy, every word earns its place, appropriate length for the complexity.

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 8 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the tool needs richer documentation. The description omits: (1) what the tool returns structurally, (2) that group_size is the sole required field, and (3) the relationship between location parameters (park_id vs park_name vs state vs near). Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the functional contract remains under-described.

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%), so the description must compensate. It maps conceptual filters (park, state, month, drive time) to parameters, implicitly covering park_id/park_name, state, month, and max_drive_minutes/near. However, it fails to mention num_weekends (return quantity), doesn't clarify the difference between park_id and park_name, and doesn't explain group_size semantics beyond implied 'group' reference. Partial compensation achieved.

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 action (Find), resource (weekend date options with campsite availability), and scope (for a group). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'find_campsites' by specifying 'upcoming weekend date options' and 'viable campsite availability,' implying a search for time slots rather than just locations. However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings or contrast use cases.

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 phrase 'for a group' implies the target use case (group camping coordination), and 'optionally filtered by' suggests flexible query patterns. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'find_campsites' or 'check_availability,' or prerequisites like needing to specify at least one location constraint beyond just group_size.

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