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 context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (Wiktionary/Wikimedia Foundation), licensing (CC BY-SA 3.0), update frequency (daily), and detailed return structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This significantly enhances behavioral understanding 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details return format and metadata. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, and critical information (tool purpose) is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (single parameter lookup), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It adds source attribution, licensing, update frequency, and detailed return format explanation that complements the structured fields perfectly for this reference tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'word' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format requirements, or language constraints). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('look up') and resource ('word definitions, etymology, and usage from Wiktionary'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a multilingual dictionary with over 7 million entries. It explicitly mentions the source (Wiktionary/Wikimedia Foundation) and license, which differentiates it from other reference tools like 'culture__free-dictionary' 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 when to use this tool ('Look up word definitions, etymology, and usage from Wiktionary'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The mention of 'multilingual dictionary' and source details implies it's for comprehensive word research, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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