Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), explains what quality scores measure ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details citation components ('source URL, license, SHA-256 data hash'). While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world aspects, the description provides important implementation details about data structure and audit capabilities.

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 purpose and scope with examples, the second details return format and source information. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero redundant information, making it easy to parse while being comprehensive.

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 moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations, complete parameter documentation, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, return format details, source attribution, and data quality aspects - everything needed for effective tool selection and invocation without duplicating structured field information.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it does provide context about where granuleId values come from ('from govinfo-search or the package's granules listing'), which is marginally helpful.

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 metadata summary'), resource ('single granule'), and scope ('sub-document within a GovInfo package') with concrete examples (CFR section, Federal Register notice). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on individual granules rather than packages or searches.

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 about when to use this tool ('for a single granule') and implies usage after obtaining granule identifiers from other tools ('from govinfo-search or the package's granules listing'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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