Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits, but the description specifies that it 'updates daily,' describes the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), and explains quality scoring and citation details. This enhances transparency 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 well-structured and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, source, update frequency, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (search with metadata return), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers the tool's function, data source, update behavior, and output structure, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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, with clear documentation for 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic details about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of query formats or usage tips. Thus, it 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Project Gutenberg's catalog of over 70,000 free ebooks via the Gutendex API.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('ebooks'), and scope ('Project Gutenberg's catalog'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on book metadata from a specific public domain source, unlike other culture tools like 'culture__open-library' or 'culture__bible-api'.

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 usage: it's for searching free ebooks in the public domain via the Gutendex API, with daily updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'entertainment__book-search' or 'culture__open-library', which might offer different book-related data.

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