Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (CFPB, Public Domain), update frequency ('updates daily'), and the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scoring and citation components. This enhances the agent's understanding of data freshness and auditability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value: coverage details, filtering support, data volume, source information, and return format. There is no redundant or wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, data scope, usage context, behavioral traits, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions 'date range filtering and pagination', which aligns with parameters like dateReceivedMin, dateReceivedMax, page, and limit, but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. It also lists example product types, which are covered by the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('consumer complaints about financial products from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'), and the scope ('Covers mortgages, credit cards, student loans, debt collection, and more'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling consumer__cfpb-hmda, which handles different CFPB data (HMDA vs. complaints).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for searching consumer complaints with filtering capabilities. It mentions date range filtering and pagination, which are key usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as consumer__cpsc-recalls for product safety issues.

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