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 ('GovInfo (GPO) (Public Domain)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and detailed return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality metrics and citation details 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, the second details the return format. Every element 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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and detailed return format. With annotations handling safety/behavioral aspects and an output schema presumably documenting the return structure, no additional information is needed for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'limit'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('List available document collections'), resource ('from the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) GovInfo API'), and scope ('available document collections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'govinfo-content', 'govinfo-granule', 'govinfo-package', and 'govinfo-search' by focusing on listing collections rather than content retrieval or search operations.

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 ('List available document collections'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. The sibling tool list includes related govinfo tools (e.g., govinfo-search for searching within collections), but the description doesn't explicitly guide the agent to choose between them.

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