Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (GovInfo/GPO), update frequency (daily), and details the return envelope structure (Katzilla with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding of data provenance and auditability.

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 core functionality and return data, and the second adds source, update frequency, and envelope details. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., data formats, quality metrics, audit trail) with zero wasted words, making it highly front-loaded and readable.

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 parameter, 100% schema coverage, annotations present, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, source context, return structure, and data quality—compensating well for any gaps. With an output schema handling return values, no further detail is needed.

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 the parameter 'packageId' fully documented in the schema (including format examples and reference to govinfo-search). The description adds minimal extra semantics by mentioning package types (e.g., 'BILLS-117hr3684enr') but doesn't provide additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full metadata summary for a single GovInfo package'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for a single package by packageId (unlike broader search tools like govinfo-search). It clearly identifies the types of resources covered (court opinion, public law, bill, etc.).

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 ('Fetch the full metadata summary for a single GovInfo package... by packageId') and when not to use it (implied: not for searching multiple packages). It references an alternative ('Get these from govinfo-search results') for obtaining packageIds, establishing clear context for usage versus sibling tools.

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