Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations confirm read-only safety (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds context about the date-range filtering behavior, but doesn't disclose the similarity matching methodology, pagination behavior (limit/offset), or what constitutes a campsite object in 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 that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Efficient structure, though arguably too terse given the complexity of the conditional schema (oneOf input requirements, if-then date constraints).

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?

Acknowledges the complex input alternatives (description vs. site reference) and the availability date constraint, but omits the conditional schema logic (required dates when available_only=true) and provides no output context given the lack of output schema.

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 (27%), requiring description compensation. While it conceptually covers the reference inputs (description/site) and date parameters, it fails to explain filtering parameters (near, max_drive_minutes) or pagination controls (limit, offset), leaving significant semantic gaps.

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?

Clearly states the core task (finding similar campsites) and identifies the two input modes (reference site vs. description). However, it doesn't define what 'similar' means algorithmically or explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'find_campsites' 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 through 'optionally filtering' language, suggesting when to use the availability constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'find_campsites' or 'search_parks', and doesn't mention the conditional requirement that dates are mandatory when filtering for availability.

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