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: it discloses the data source and licensing ('Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (CC0 1.0)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and the specific return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details about quality scoring and citation contents.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, source/licensing information, and return format details. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, source, licensing, update frequency, and detailed return format - addressing all aspects an agent needs beyond what's in structured fields. The output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it implies the query parameter's purpose through the collection context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search'), resource ('The Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection of over 470,000 artworks'), and scope ('detailed object metadata including artist, period, medium, and images'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'culture__smithsonian' or 'culture__aic-artworks' by specifying the exact museum collection and metadata format.

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 ('Search The Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection') and implies usage for art-related queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the museum specificity helps differentiate it from other culture tools.

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