Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('NREL Census Rate API'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), and details about the return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation information. This enhances 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 source, the second explains the return format and additional details. Every sentence adds value 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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating for any gaps. The output schema likely details the 'Katzilla envelope', so the description need not explain return values exhaustively.

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 'lat' and 'lon' parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 ('look up utility rates by census region') and identifies the resource ('from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on utility rates and census regions, unlike other energy tools like 'energy__eurostat-energy' or 'energy__nrel-building-components'.

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 utility rates by census region for a given location'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies usage for location-based utility rate queries without specifying exclusions or comparisons to other data sources.

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