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 (USAspending.gov), update frequency (daily), return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), and audit features (SHA-256 hash). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 tool's purpose and return data, and the second adds source, update frequency, and output format details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose, data source, update behavior, and output structure, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to understand its use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'limit' parameter with its constraints and default. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how limit interacts with pagination or data volume. With high schema coverage, 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 ('List federal agencies'), resource ('from the USAspending.gov API'), and scope ('Returns agency names, budgets, and identifiers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on federal agencies from a specific government data source, unlike tools like 'government__congress-bills' or 'government__fec-candidates' which target different government data domains.

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: when needing federal agency data from USAspending.gov, with daily updates, and a specific return format (Katzilla envelope). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data (e.g., other government data tools), though the sibling list shows many distinct domains.

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