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 context beyond annotations: it discloses the source (GovInfo/GPO), update frequency (daily), return format (Katzilla envelope with data/quality/citation), and specific quality metrics (freshness/uptime/confidence). This significantly enhances 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose, scope, formats, and PDF alternative; the second explains return format and quality metrics. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by return format description), the description provides complete context. It covers source attribution, update frequency, format purposes, PDF alternative, and return structure - addressing all necessary dimensions for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'packageId' fetches full packages while 'granuleId' fetches sub-documents, clarifies format purposes ('htm for reading', XML variants for metadata), and reinforces the PDF limitation mentioned in guidelines. This provides semantic understanding beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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 ('Fetch the actual text content'), resource ('GovInfo package or granule'), and scope ('court opinion, public law, Federal Register notice, CFR section, etc.') with explicit format options. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that PDFs require using 'govinfo-package' instead, showing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for HTML/XML/MODS/PREMIS content) and when not to use it (for PDFs, directing to 'govinfo-package'). It names the specific alternative tool for PDF handling, creating clear decision boundaries for the agent.

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