Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source (FBI Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and details about the return envelope structure (Katzilla with quality scores and citation info), which helps the agent understand 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key details, and the second explains the return format and metadata. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (retrieving structured data with metadata), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, source, update frequency, and return format. With annotations covering behavioral traits and an output schema implied by the mention of the Katzilla envelope, no critical information is missing for effective tool use.

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, clearly documenting both parameters (page and limit) with ranges and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('FBI Most Wanted list'), including details like fugitive details, images, and reward information. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on FBI data, unlike other crime tools like courtlistener or recap-docket which handle court records.

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 implies usage for retrieving FBI Most Wanted data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It mentions the source and update frequency, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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