Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the source (OECD), update frequency (monthly), return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation), and audit features (SHA-256 hash). While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 covers purpose, source, and updates; the second details the return format and its components. Every element serves a clear purpose with no redundant information.

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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers source, update frequency, return structure, and auditability, 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters (country ISO code and lastN count). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without extra value.

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 with specific verbs ('Get key economic indicators') and resources ('OECD SDMX API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'economic__bea-gdp' or 'economic__world-bank' by specifying the OECD source and monthly updates.

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 OECD economic indicators with monthly updates), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling economic tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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