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 context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('Federal Register (Public Domain)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scores and citation components. This enriches behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details in a logical flow (filtering, source, updates, return format). Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second adds filtering context, the third specifies source and frequency, and the fourth explains the output structure. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly efficient.

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 (6 parameters, search functionality), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world traits), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description of the return format), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and output structure, compensating well for any gaps, and no critical information is missing 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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., query for search terms, date ranges for filtering, docType with enum values). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'date range filtering for historical regulatory data' and the types of documents, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('U.S. Federal Register'), and the scope ('rules, proposed rules, notices, and presidential documents'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'government__govinfo-search' or 'government__regulations-gov' that target different government data sources. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name or title.

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 implies usage for historical regulatory data with date range filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'government__govinfo-search' for broader government documents or 'government__regulations-gov' for regulatory comments). It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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