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 source URL (podatki.gov.si), update frequency (daily), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation data including SHA-256 hash). While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 purpose and source, the second details the return format and its components. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse while being information-dense.

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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format details that complement the structured metadata effectively.

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 (query and limit). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value regarding parameter usage or meaning.

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 the Slovenian government open data portal'), the resource ('public datasets'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact source (podatki.gov.si) and data domain (Slovenian government open data). It goes beyond generic search by identifying the unique portal and data type.

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 ('Search the Slovenian government open data portal for public datasets') and mentions the source and update frequency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for similar data from other countries, though the sibling list shows many government data tools for different regions.

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