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: 'Source: Rick and Morty API (Public Domain), updates daily' and details about the return envelope structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation). This provides freshness information and output format specifics that annotations don't cover.

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: first sentence states purpose, second adds source and update frequency, third explains return format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (2 parameters, read-only operation), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format details, compensating well where structured data might be insufficient (e.g., explaining the Katzilla envelope structure).

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%, with both parameters (id, name) well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID or search by name' but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or search behavior nuances). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Look up Rick and Morty characters by ID or search by name' - a specific verb (look up/search) and resource (characters). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the Rick and Morty domain, which is unique among the listed siblings (e.g., fun__chess-com, fun__pokeapi).

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 usage context: 'by ID or search by name' and notes that 'name overrides id if provided' (implied from input schema context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other character lookup tools not present in siblings) or any exclusions, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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