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 this: it discloses the update frequency (monthly), source attribution (IMF Terms of Use), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation). 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second covers behavioral details and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open world), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits (updates, source, return format), and distinguishes from siblings, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, fully documenting all four parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds minimal parameter semantics, only implying the scope (multi-year ranges, 190+ countries) without providing additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get economic indicators from the IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) DataMapper.' It specifies the data source (IMF), scope (190+ countries, multi-year ranges back to 1980), and examples of indicators (GDP growth, inflation, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like economic__bea-gdp or economic__world-bank by focusing on IMF-specific data.

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 IMF economic indicators with support for multi-year ranges and forecasts. It implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning the IMF source, but does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare with specific sibling tools like economic__fred-series or economic__oecd-indicators.

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