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 context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (OpenStreetMap Nominatim with ODbL license), update frequency (daily), and return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), which helps the agent understand data freshness and auditability.

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 in the first sentence, followed by source and return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies source and updates, and the third explains the return structure. There is no wasted text, 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 (geocoding with external data), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds necessary context like data source, license, update frequency, and return format, which complements the structured fields without redundancy, ensuring the agent has sufficient information for correct usage.

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 and limit). The description does not add further details about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting examples or limit implications. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search for locations using OpenStreetMap Nominatim geocoding service.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('locations'), and service source, distinguishing it from siblings like geo__census-geocoder or geo__geocode-xyz by naming the specific geocoding service (Nominatim).

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 for location searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the source (OpenStreetMap Nominatim) and daily updates, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools like geo__osm-overpass for more complex queries.

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