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. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('CourtListener RECAP Archive / Free Law Project'), update frequency ('updates daily'), return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), and details about quality scores and citation metadata. This provides practical behavioral information not covered by annotations.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and return content; the second details source, update frequency, and output format. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero redundant information, making it easy 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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, source, update frequency, and output structure, leaving no gaps for agent understanding. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on higher-level context.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema—it mentions the parameter relationship ('Use this OR (court + docket_number)') and provides an example ('e.g. 'caDC' + '21-5166''), but doesn't explain parameter implications or usage nuances. This meets the baseline 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 action ('Fetch a single federal docket'), resource ('from the RECAP Archive'), and scope ('by CourtListener docket id, or by court code + docket number'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crime__recap-search' by specifying this retrieves a single docket rather than searching, and from 'crime__recap-document' by focusing on docket sheets rather than documents.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Fetch a single federal docket') and provides clear alternatives for parameter input ('Use this OR (court + docket_number)'). The description also references 'recap-search results' as a source for docket_id, guiding users to sibling tools when appropriate.

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