Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the return format ('Returns the Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), explains quality scoring ('quality scores freshness/uptime/confidence'), and describes citation details ('citation carries the source URL, license, and a SHA-256 data hash for audit'). While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world aspects, the description enriches understanding of output behavior and data characteristics.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) defines the search scope and basic return, (2) provides sibling tool guidance, (3) describes source and detailed return format. There's no redundant information, and key details are front-loaded appropriately.

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 (search across multiple government collections), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the search scope, return format, sibling relationships, data source, update frequency, and detailed output structure. With comprehensive annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description adds exactly the right amount of supplementary context without duplicating structured 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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does provide context about the search scope ('across all... collections') and result format, which relates to parameters indirectly. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Search across all U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) GovInfo collections'), identifies the resources ('USCODE, CFR, PLAW, FR, USCOURTS, CREC, BILLS, etc.'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives ('use govinfo-package, govinfo-granule, or govinfo-content for the underlying documents'). This provides complete purpose clarity with sibling 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 versus alternatives: 'use govinfo-package, govinfo-granule, or govinfo-content for the underlying documents.' It also clarifies the scope ('Returns packageId / granuleId references plus basic metadata') and source context ('Source: GovInfo (GPO) (Public Domain), updates daily'), giving comprehensive usage instructions.

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