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 this: it discloses the source (Regulations.gov, Public Domain), update frequency (daily), and the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash for audit). This enhances understanding of data freshness, reliability, 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 purpose and scope, and the second details the source, updates, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description of the return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, addressing key contextual needs without redundancy.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (query, limit, documentType). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Regulations.gov'), resource ('federal regulatory documents'), and scope ('including rules, proposed rules, notices, and public submissions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying the unique Regulations.gov source and document types.

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 implies usage for searching federal regulatory documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other government data tools like federal_register or govinfo). It provides context about the source but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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