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 (U.S. Census Bureau), update frequency (annual), and details about the return structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation metadata). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 core purpose and output, the second adds crucial metadata about source, updates, and return format. Every element serves a clear purpose 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 simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage, annotations present, and output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update cadence, and return structure—adequately supplementing the structured data without redundancy.

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 the single 'address' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline 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: 'Convert US addresses to latitude/longitude coordinates using the Census Bureau geocoder.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('US addresses'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific data source (Census Bureau) and output format (Katzilla envelope).

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: it's for US addresses and returns specific census data (tract, block). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative geocoding tools among siblings (e.g., geo__geocode-xyz, geo__nominatim), which prevents a perfect score.

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