Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the data source (Library of Congress), update frequency (daily), return format (Katzilla envelope), and details about quality scoring and citation components, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 scope, the second details the return format and components. Every element adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, data source, update frequency, and return format, addressing key contextual needs without needing to explain parameters or return values in detail.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 searches the Library of Congress digital collections for specific resource types (books, photographs, maps, manuscripts), distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the data source (Library of Congress), and includes the verb 'search' with the resource 'digital collections'.

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 when to use this tool (searching Library of Congress collections) and mentions the data source and update frequency, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings listed.

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