Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (Tenders.guru, Open Data), update frequency (daily), and details about the return structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash for audit). This enriches the agent's 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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It efficiently covers purpose, scope, source, update frequency, and return format in two sentences, with no redundant or vague language. The structure moves from general function to specific details logically.

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 (search with two parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It adds necessary context about data source, freshness, and return structure that complements the structured fields, making it fully adequate for agent use without over-explaining.

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 both parameters (limit and country) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how country filtering works or provide examples beyond the schema's ISO code description). Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 public procurement tenders'), resource ('from Tenders.guru'), and scope ('Supports multiple countries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its unique data domain (government tenders) and source (Tenders.guru), unlike other government tools that focus on different data types like bills, spending, or regulations.

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 for when to use this tool: for searching public procurement tenders from a specific source (Tenders.guru) across multiple countries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., other government data tools like government__datagov or government__usaspending), which prevents a perfect score.

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