Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the data source ('Wikimedia REST API'), update frequency ('updates daily'), licensing ('CC BY-SA 3.0'), and detailed output structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'). While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 core functionality and context, the second details the output format and metadata. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words, and key information is 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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, data source, licensing, update frequency, and output structure - addressing all aspects an agent needs to understand and use the tool 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (title and language). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or semantics.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve a summary') and resources ('any Wikipedia article'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's for Wikipedia articles (unlike other culture tools like wiktionary or met-museum). The mention of 'Katzilla envelope' output format further differentiates it.

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 about when to use this tool ('retrieve a summary of any Wikipedia article') and mentions support for multiple languages, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., wiktionary for dictionary definitions).

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