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 behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (Congress.gov), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details the return structure ('Katzilla envelope') with quality metrics and citation info, enhancing transparency 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 optional filtering, source details, and return format explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (read-only data retrieval), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 ('limit' and 'congress') well-documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering 'by congress number' and implies result limiting, but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('Retrieve recent bills'), resource ('from the U.S. Congress API'), and scope ('Optionally filter by congress number'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact data source (Congress.gov) and return format (Katzilla envelope), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 ('Retrieve recent bills') and mentions an optional filter ('by congress number'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage for accessing congressional bill data, yet lacks explicit guidance on sibling tool comparisons or specific scenarios.

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