Tentahead MCP

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive safety properties. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing what constitutes the 'park profile' (facilities, trails, scout-relevant details), helping agents know what data to expect, though it omits error behaviors or rate limits.

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 description is a single efficient sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'Return'. Every clause adds specific content categories, though the final prepositional phrase 'for a specific park' is somewhat vague given the parameter 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately enumerates return content (facilities, rules, etc.). However, with simple input parameters completely undescribed in the schema, the description should have documented the park identification options, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. While it mentions 'for a specific park' implying identification is needed, it fails to explain the two alternative identifier parameters (park_id vs park_name) or the oneOf constraint that only one is required.

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 a 'park profile' with specific content types (facilities, rules, trails, amenities, scout-relevant planning details). The phrase 'for a specific park' implicitly distinguishes it from discovery-oriented siblings like search_parks or find_similar, though it lacks explicit contrast.

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 select this tool versus alternatives like search_parks (for discovery) or get_weather/check_availability (for specific facts). It also fails to mention the prerequisite of needing to identify a specific park first.

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