Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds important details about data freshness ('updates daily'), the specific return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation data), and audit capabilities (SHA-256 data hash). This provides richer behavioral understanding than annotations alone.

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 three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, specifying the data source and freshness, and describing the return format. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first, followed by supporting details.

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 that the tool has comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, data source characteristics, return format with quality metrics, and audit capabilities. The combination of description plus structured fields gives the agent everything needed to understand and use this tool 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (name filter and limit). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('members of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data source (Camara dos Deputados Open Data). It also explicitly describes the return format (Katzilla envelope), which helps differentiate it from other government tools that might return different data structures.

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 some usage context by mentioning the data source and update frequency ('updates daily'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clearly for searching Brazilian deputies, there's no guidance about when to choose this over other government search tools or what specific use cases it serves best.

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