Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, including data source details (MusicBrainz, CC0 1.0 license, daily updates), return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation), and quality metrics (freshness/uptime/confidence). Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description appropriately supplements without contradicting them.

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 scope, and the second details the return format and source information. Every sentence adds essential value with 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 multiple resource types), rich annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, data source, update frequency, and return format, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters (resource, query, limit). The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond implying search functionality, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 verbs ('Search the MusicBrainz open music encyclopedia') and resources ('artists, recordings, and releases'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying its unique domain (music metadata) and data source (MusicBrainz).

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 the MusicBrainz open music encyclopedia for artists, recordings, and releases'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, such as other entertainment or culture-related siblings.

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