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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('openSenseMap'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation components. This significantly enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 purpose and optional filtering, the second details the return format and source information. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, return format structure, and data quality aspects - everything needed for effective tool selection and use.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by location' which aligns with the lat/lng/radius parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search for environmental sensor stations'), resource ('senseBoxes from the openSenseMap platform'), and scope ('optionally filtered by location'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'environment__openaq' or 'environment__waqi' by specifying the exact platform and sensor type (senseBoxes).

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 ('Search for environmental sensor stations... optionally filtered by location'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The optional filtering is mentioned, which helps guide usage decisions.

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