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 context beyond annotations by specifying the source, update frequency, license, and detailed return structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enhances behavioral understanding 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose, source, and updates; the second details the return format. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (search with structured returns), 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 the data source, license, update frequency, and return format, compensating for any gaps without needing to explain parameters or output details already covered elsewhere.

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 ('query' and 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('NHS Scotland open data portal for health datasets'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the source (NHS Scotland Open Data) and return format (Katzilla envelope). This clearly differentiates it from other health tools like 'health__cdc-data' or 'health__nhs-england'.

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 by specifying the data source (NHS Scotland Open Data), update frequency (daily), and license (UK Open Government License). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health__nhs-england' or other health data tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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