Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation), source details (PokéAPI, Public Domain, daily updates), and audit features (SHA-256 hash). This enhances transparency without contradicting 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 into two sentences: one stating the purpose and return data, and another detailing the source and envelope format. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return format, compensating adequately for any gaps. No additional explanation is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'nameOrId' documented as 'Pokémon name or Pokédex ID.' The description mentions 'by name or ID' but does not add significant semantic details beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up a Pokémon by name or ID using the PokéAPI.' It specifies the action ('look up'), resource ('Pokémon'), and method ('by name or ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different domains like agriculture, crime, or economics. The description is specific and avoids tautology.

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: for retrieving Pokémon data via name or ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as other fun-related tools like 'fun__swapi' for Star Wars data. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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