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'), and details about quality scores and citation metadata. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, source information, and output structure. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second lists returns, the third specifies source and updates, and the fourth explains the envelope format. No redundant or vague statements.

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 (fetching legal documents), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, source, update frequency, and output structure. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and an output schema existing (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth. It provides all necessary context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'plain-text extraction' and 'metadata only', which aligns with the 'include_text' parameter but doesn't add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. It also references 'document_id' but doesn't elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('Fetch a single filing'), the resource ('from RECAP by its CourtListener document id'), and the return content ('document metadata, plain-text extraction, download URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recap-search' (which searches) and 'recap-docket' (which fetches dockets), specifying this tool retrieves individual documents by ID.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Fetch a single filing... by its CourtListener document id') and how to obtain the ID ('Get this from recap-search results or from the docket_entries of a recap-docket response'). It distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on single-document retrieval, unlike search or docket tools.

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