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 data source (EPA AQS, Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and detailed return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world properties, the description enriches this with implementation-specific details that help the agent understand data provenance and structure.

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 core functionality and source, the second details the return format. Every element (source, update frequency, return structure) adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation with annotations), the description provides complete context: purpose, data source, update frequency, and detailed return format. With output schema existing, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it usefully describes the envelope structure. This is fully adequate for this straightforward lookup tool.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately notes there are no required inputs by not discussing parameters, which is correct for this parameterless tool. It focuses instead on what the tool does and returns, which is the right emphasis.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all US states available in the EPA Air Quality System'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source (EPA AQS) and scope (US states only). It explicitly mentions what it returns (Katzilla envelope structure), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (to get US state data from EPA AQS, updated daily), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The source and update frequency guidance helps, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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