Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the data source ('dados.gov.pt'), update frequency ('updates daily'), licensing ('CC-BY 4.0'), and detailed return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality metrics and citation details). While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand what to expect.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, data scope and source, and return format details. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and maintains appropriate density throughout.

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 scoring), rich annotations, complete input schema, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, scope, source, licensing, update frequency, and detailed return format - everything needed to understand the tool's behavior without needing to explain basic parameters or output structure.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or result formatting details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Search the Portuguese open data portal (dados.gov.pt)' with specific resources ('Datasets from Portuguese national and local government agencies') and domains ('economy, health, education, transport, and environment'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on Portuguese government data, unlike other government__data-* tools for different countries.

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 about when to use this tool ('Search the Portuguese open data portal') and what it covers ('Datasets from Portuguese national and local government agencies'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for similar data from other countries, though the sibling list shows many country-specific alternatives.

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