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 (Environment Agency), update frequency (daily), license (Open Government Licence), and the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding of data freshness, auditability, and reliability.

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 tool's purpose, scope, and source; the second explains the return format and its components. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 (4 parameters, no required ones), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description of the Katzilla envelope), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, license, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters (type, county, stationId, limit) with descriptions and constraints. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of county names or stationId formats, but it doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: providing real-time flood warnings and river/sea level monitoring from the UK Environment Agency. It specifies the data types (flood alerts, warnings, water level readings) and source, distinguishing it from sibling environment tools like environment__canada-weather or environment__noaa-cdo which cover different regions or data types.

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 (real-time flood monitoring in the UK) and mentions the data source and update frequency (daily). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the UK focus and flood data specialization naturally differentiate it.

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