Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('USGS Water Services (Public Domain)'), update frequency ('updates real-time'), and return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scoring and citation content. 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, followed by source details and return format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives source and update info, and the third explains the return structure. It is efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, behavior, and output format, compensating well for any gaps. No additional explanation is needed for parameters or safety due to schema and annotations.

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 parameters (sites, parameterCd, period). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'streamflow, gage height' but the schema already explains parameter codes). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 real-time water data (streamflow, gage height) from USGS water monitoring sites.' It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('real-time water data'), and scope ('USGS water monitoring sites'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools in the hazards category (e.g., hazards__fema-disasters, hazards__usgs-earthquakes) by focusing on water data rather than other hazards.

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 usage: it's for real-time water data from USGS, with a specified source and update frequency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., hazards__usgs-earthquakes for earthquake data), though the context implies it's for water-related queries. This is good but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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