Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('Queensland Government (Open Data)'), update frequency ('daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with explanations of quality scores and citation components. This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior 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 explains the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 returns), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, leaving detailed output to the schema. No gaps are evident for effective agent use.

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 additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit usage tips. With 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 specific action ('Search'), target resource ('Queensland government open data portal for public datasets'), and scope ('open data portal'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the Queensland government source and daily updates, unlike broader tools like government__data-australia or other regional datasets.

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 Queensland government open data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity implies it's for Queensland-focused queries rather than other regions or general searches.

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