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 idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (U.S. Census Bureau, Public Domain), update frequency (monthly), and the return structure (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation details including freshness/uptime/confidence scores and audit hash). This enriches 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 states the purpose and scope with specific examples, and the second details the return format and data quality. Every element (source, update frequency, return structure) serves a clear informational purpose without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations covering key behaviors, and an output schema implied by the return format description), the description is complete. It covers purpose, data source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating adequately where annotations and schema may not fully convey context (e.g., data quality and citation details). With output schema information provided in the description, no gaps remain for effective tool use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (indicator with enum values and year with range). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions general indicator types but does not elaborate on parameter usage, defaults, or interactions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter insight.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: retrieving 'Monthly and quarterly economic indicators from the US Census Bureau' with specific examples (retail sales, construction spending, manufacturing, housing starts, and trade). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like demographics__census-acs (which focuses on ACS data) or economic__bls-series (Bureau of Labor Statistics data), establishing a unique scope for Census Bureau economic indicators.

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 implies usage context by specifying the data source (U.S. Census Bureau) and update frequency (monthly), and mentions the agent context ('Demographics & Population Agent'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like economic__bea-gdp or economic__fred-series for similar economic data, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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