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. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('Data.gov.ie'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation components. This enhances 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 source, the second details the return format. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 two parameters), rich annotations (four hints), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating well for any gaps without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit rationale. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Search the Irish government open data portal for public datasets'), identifies the resource ('Irish government open data portal'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the source ('Data.gov.ie') and geographic focus ('Irish'), which differentiates it from other government data tools like data-australia or data-canada.

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 ('Search the Irish government open data portal for public datasets'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for Irish open data searches without exclusions or comparisons to similar tools.

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