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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (NOAA National Weather Service), update frequency (real-time), return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), and that it includes specific alert types (hurricane warnings, watches, tropical storm warnings). No contradiction with annotations.

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: first stating the tool's purpose and scope, then detailing the return format and data quality. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it 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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter), rich annotations (four hints), and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, return format, and data quality aspects, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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 one parameter ('limit') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is acceptable since the schema provides complete documentation. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter semantics when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get active hurricane and tropical storm alerts from the National Weather Service API.' It specifies the resource (hurricane/tropical storm alerts), source (NOAA National Weather Service), and distinguishes from siblings like 'hazards__nws-alerts' by focusing specifically on hurricanes/tropical storms rather than general weather alerts.

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 real-time hurricane/tropical storm alerts. It mentions the source and update frequency, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'hazards__nws-alerts' for broader weather alerts).

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