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, covering safety and behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the source (PoetryDB, Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation for audit). 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 purpose, scope, source, and return format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second explains output details and source context, with no wasted words.

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 two parameters), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the presence of an output schema (implied by description of return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and output details, making it sufficient for an AI agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (field with enum and value). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, mentioning 'Search PoetryDB for classic poetry by title, author, or lines' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional details like search syntax or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Search PoetryDB for classic poetry by title, author, or lines.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('PoetryDB'), and scope ('classic poetry'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on poetry search, unlike other culture tools like art, dictionary, or library searches.

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: for searching classic poetry via specific fields (title, author, lines). It mentions the source (PoetryDB) and updates daily, which implies freshness. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using other culture tools for non-poetry searches.

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