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 specifies the data source ('NREL Building Component Library'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), return format ('Katzilla envelope'), and details about quality scores and citation information. This 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by source, update frequency, and return details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 functionality with two parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating for any gaps. With annotations and output schema handling behavioral and return aspects, the description provides adequate contextual information.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details for these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of query terms or explanation of limit implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Search', 'Find') and resources ('Building Component Library from NREL', 'building components, materials, and assemblies for energy modeling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on NREL's building component data, which is unique within the energy category compared to other tools like 'energy__eurostat-energy' or 'energy__nrel-census-rate'.

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 ('for energy modeling') and mentions the source and update frequency, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No sibling tools are directly referenced for comparison, leaving usage guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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