Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source (EPA ECHO), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with quality metrics and citation info, which are not covered by 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by source and update info, and concludes with return format details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides metadata, and the third explains the output structure. No wasted words.

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 with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by return format description), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and output structure, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 state (U.S. state/territory code), city (city name filter), and limit (number of results). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how city filtering works or interaction between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('EPA ECHO for environmental compliance and enforcement facilities'), and scope ('by state and city'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the data source (EPA ECHO) and domain (environmental compliance), unlike other environment tools like 'epa-aqs' or 'noaa-cdo'.

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 the tool: searching for environmental compliance facilities by state and city. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity of the search parameters (state/city) implies it's for location-based queries, distinguishing it from broader environmental data tools.

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