Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (data.gouv.fr), license (Licence Ouverte / Open License), update frequency (daily), and return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source, license, update info, and return format details. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second provides metadata, and the third explains the output structure. No wasted words, and it's structured for quick comprehension.

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 (geocoding with quality metrics), the description is complete: it covers purpose, source, licensing, update frequency, and detailed return format. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema presumably detailing the Katzilla envelope structure, no critical gaps remain. It adequately prepares the agent for effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' as address search and 'limit' as max results). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of query format or limit constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 for French addresses') and resources ('using the data.gouv.fr address API'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the geographic scope (French addresses) and data source (data.gouv.fr). This is more specific than generic geocoding tools like geo__census-geocoder or geo__nominatim in the sibling list.

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'French addresses' and the data source, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for non-French addresses or other geocoding needs). It provides no exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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