Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source ('Federal Trade Commission (Public Domain)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with details on quality scoring and citation contents). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description complements them well without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, source/update info, and return format. Each sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, leaving detailed parameter and output specifics to the schemas.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (one parameter 'limit' fully documented), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it implies the tool returns early termination notices without specifying how 'limit' interacts with that.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Query FTC Hart-Scott-Rodino early termination notices') and resources ('merger and acquisition filings'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it shows 'companies that received early termination of the HSR waiting period' rather than other FTC or consumer data.

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 ('Query FTC Hart-Scott-Rodino early termination notices for merger and acquisition filings'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the specificity implies it's for FTC merger data only.

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