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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (U.S. Geological Survey), update frequency ('real-time'), and output structure ('Katzilla envelope' with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enhances transparency without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides source, update frequency, and output format details. It is efficiently structured with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, source, real-time updates, and output structure, complementing the structured fields. With annotations handling safety and an output schema likely detailing the 'Katzilla envelope', no critical gaps remain for agent understanding.

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 all 6 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain magnitude scales or time formats). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Query recent earthquake events from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program' with specific resources (magnitude, location, time, coordinates) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the data source (USGS) and domain (hazards). It uses a clear verb ('Query') and resource ('earthquake events'), making it distinct from other hazard tools like 'fema-disasters' or 'nasa-wildfires'.

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 context by mentioning 'recent earthquake events' and the source (USGS), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the domain and data type without clear directives.

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