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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (Data.gov, Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation information including SHA-256 hash). This significantly enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, source/update info, and return format details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format details, which complements the structured data well. No significant gaps remain for this search tool.

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 both parameters (query, limit) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions searching but doesn't elaborate on query syntax or limit implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Search the U.S. federal data catalog on Data.gov for open government datasets'), identifies the resource ('datasets'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the source (Data.gov) and scope (U.S. federal data). This is more specific than generic search tools in the list.

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 ('Search the U.S. federal data catalog on Data.gov for open government datasets'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for U.S. federal data searches without stating exclusions.

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