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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the Creative Commons Attribution license, daily update frequency, and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation metadata including SHA-256 hash). This provides important operational context not captured in 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 that pack substantial information: first sentence covers purpose, scope, and source; second sentence explains return format and metadata. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

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 has comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by mention of Katzilla envelope), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers data source, licensing, update frequency, and return format details that complement the structured metadata.

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 all three parameters (query, organization, limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics.

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 ('Search the Australian government open data portal'), identifies the resource ('data.gov.au'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the geographic scope (Australia) and data source (government open data portal). It provides concrete details about dataset count, sources, and subject areas.

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 about when to use this tool (searching Australian government open data) and mentions the data source and update frequency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for similar data from other countries, though siblings like government__data-canada and government__data-uk exist.

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