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 (open.canada.ca), license (Open Government Licence - Canada), update frequency (daily), and return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details (dataset count, topics, source, license, updates) and return format. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it's structured efficiently in a single paragraph.

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 (search with filtering), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, license, updates, and return structure, compensating well for any gaps. No additional explanation of return values is needed due to the output schema.

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 clear descriptions for 'query' (search query), 'organization' (filter by organization), and 'limit' (max results). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'organization' beyond the schema's 'statcan, nrcan, hc-sc'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the Canadian government open data portal (open.canada.ca).' It specifies the resource (90,000+ datasets from federal departments) and scope (economics, health, environment, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like government__data-australia or government__data-uk by focusing on Canada-specific data.

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 searching Canadian open data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other government data tools like government__data-australia). It mentions the source and update frequency, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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