Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the source (data.gov.uk), update frequency (daily), license (Open Government Licence), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding of data provenance and output structure.

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, and source; the second explains the return format and its components. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 multiple parameters), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data source, update frequency, license, and output structure, providing all necessary context for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (query, publisher, limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as example queries or publisher formats. However, it implies search functionality through 'Search the UK government open data portal,' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't enhance their semantics.

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: 'Search the UK government open data portal (data.gov.uk).' It specifies the resource ('over 50,000 datasets from UK central and local government') and lists key domains covered (transport, health, education, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like government__data-australia or government__data-canada by focusing on UK-specific data.

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 UK government open data, with daily updates and an Open Government Licence. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the domain focus implies usage for UK-related queries rather than other countries' data portals.

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