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 context beyond this: it discloses the data source ('OpenStreetMap Overpass (ODbL)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation information. 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, the second details the return format and its components. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., source license, return structure, quality scores) with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and highly concise.

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 (geospatial querying), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by return format details), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (lat, lon, radius, tag, limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tag syntax or radius constraints. Baseline 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Query OpenStreetMap Overpass API to find nearby points of interest by tag.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('OpenStreetMap Overpass API'), and scope ('nearby points of interest by tag'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other domains like agriculture, crime, or economics.

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 geography/geolocation queries with tags but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other geo__ tools like geo__nominatim or geo__census-geocoder). It mentions the source and update frequency, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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