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 idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the source (dane.gov.pl), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation components. 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose, scope, source, and updates; the second explains the return format and its components. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 structured output), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It adds necessary context like data source, update frequency, and return format details, compensating adequately where structured fields may not fully convey usage nuances.

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 result formatting details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Polish open data portal (dane.gov.pl)'), and scope ('Datasets from Polish national and regional agencies covering public finance, demographics, education, health, and environment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the Polish data source, unlike other government data tools like 'government__data-australia' or 'government__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 by specifying the data source (dane.gov.pl) and subject areas (public finance, demographics, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data from other countries, 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.