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 annotations: it specifies the data source (EPA GHGRP, Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). No contradiction with 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 details the return format. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., update frequency, return structure) with zero waste, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (querying EPA data), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It adds necessary context like data source, update frequency, and return format details, compensating adequately without needing to explain parameters or output values.

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 ('limit' and 'state') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify state abbreviation formats or limit constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Query EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data for facility-level direct emissions.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('EPA GHGRP data'), and scope ('facility-level direct emissions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like environment__epa-aqs (air quality) or environment__climate-trace (global emissions).

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 usage: it's for querying EPA GHGRP data, updated daily, with a specific return format. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., environment__epa-aqs for air quality or environment__climate-trace for broader emissions), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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