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), update frequency ('updates daily'), return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), and explains quality scoring and citation details. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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: it starts with the core purpose, lists key filters, explains the return format and follow-up action, and ends with source and update details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (7 parameters, required query), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral context (source, updates, return format), and integration with sibling tools, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by court, filing date range, party name, or nature of suit') and linking to external documentation for natureOfSuit, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 tool performs a 'Full-text search across the RECAP Archive (federal court dockets mirrored from PACER by Free Law Project)', specifying both the verb ('search') and resource ('RECAP Archive'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crime__recap-docket' by explaining this returns docket entries for further lookup, not full docket sheets.

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 versus alternatives: 'feed the docket_id into recap-docket for the full sheet' directly names the sibling tool for follow-up actions. It also outlines filtering capabilities (court, date range, party name, nature of suit) that define appropriate use cases.

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