Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the data source (avoindata.fi), update frequency ('updates daily'), license (CC-BY 4.0), and detailed return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality metrics and citation details). This enriches behavioral 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second details the return format and source information. Every sentence adds critical value—no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's use.

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 quality metrics), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, license, and return structure, compensating for any gaps. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, and the output schema likely detailing the envelope, no essential information is missing.

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 (query and limit) fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit usage tips. However, it implies the tool is for search operations, which aligns with the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Finnish open data portal (avoindata.fi).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Finnish open data portal'), and scope ('Datasets from Finnish national and municipal authorities covering statistics, geospatial data, environment, transport, and education'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like government__data-australia or government__data-uk by explicitly naming Finland and its data sources.

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 when to use this tool: for searching Finnish open data across specific domains (statistics, geospatial, etc.). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the specificity of 'Finnish' and 'avoindata.fi' implies it should be used for Finland-specific queries rather than other countries' data tools listed as siblings.

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