Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Returns questions with correct and incorrect answers'), data source details ('Source: Open Trivia Database (CC BY-SA 4.0), updates daily'), and output envelope structure ('Returns the Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'). Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description enhances understanding without contradiction.

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, followed by filtering details, return values, and source information in a compact two-sentence format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (trivia data retrieval with filtering), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving no critical 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?

The description mentions filtering by category and difficulty, which aligns with the input schema parameters, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for amount, category, and difficulty). The baseline is 3 since the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 ('Get trivia questions') and resources ('from the Open Trivia Database'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its unique domain (trivia) and data source, unlike other tools in the list (e.g., agriculture, crypto, or government tools).

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 by mentioning filtering options ('Filter by category and difficulty') and the data source, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as other entertainment or reference tools.

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