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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('USGS National Map'), update frequency ('daily'), and details about the return structure ('quality scores freshness/uptime/confidence; citation carries source URL, license, SHA-256 hash'), which helps the agent understand data reliability 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and source, the second details return format and quality metrics. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds necessary context about data source, update frequency, and return structure that complements the structured fields, 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 both parameters (lat, lon) fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage notes. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%).

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 specific action ('Get elevation data'), target resource ('for a geographic point'), and data source ('from the USGS National Map'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'geo__census-geocoder' or 'geo__nominatim' that handle different geographic functions. It avoids tautology by elaborating beyond the name/title.

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 by specifying the data source, update frequency ('updates daily'), and return format ('Katzilla envelope'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other elevation or geolocation tools) or any exclusions. This gives adequate guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.

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