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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source, update frequency (daily), and details about the return structure (quality scores for freshness/uptime/confidence, citation with URL, license, and SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and output.

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 source details and return format explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides context (source and updates), and the third clarifies the output structure. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 parameters and structured output), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and detailed return format. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema existing (though not provided here), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return values.

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 both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit usage tips. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 with specific verbs ('Search the Lviv city open data portal for public datasets') and resources ('public datasets'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the geographic scope (Lviv, Ukraine) and data source (Lviv City Administration Open Data). It also mentions the return format (Katzilla envelope), which helps differentiate it from other data search tools.

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 Lviv's open data portal with daily updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., other government data tools for different regions like data-germany or data-uk), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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