Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (ClinicalTrials.gov), update frequency (daily), return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), and that it's public domain. While annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, the description enriches this with practical implementation details that help the agent understand data provenance and output structure.

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 core functionality, and the second provides critical metadata about source, updates, and return format. Every phrase adds value (e.g., 'Public Domain', 'SHA-256 data hash for audit') without redundancy, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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 (2 parameters, search functionality), the description is complete: it covers purpose, source, update frequency, return format, and data quality aspects. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema presumably detailing the Katzilla envelope structure, no essential information is missing for effective agent 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description mentions 'keyword' which aligns with 'query' but doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., search syntax examples, typical query patterns). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Search ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies by keyword') and resources ('clinical studies'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data source (ClinicalTrials.gov) and return format (Katzilla envelope). This is more specific than just 'search clinical trials' and clearly differentiates it from other health tools like 'nih-reporter' or 'pubmed'.

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 ('Search ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies by keyword') and implies it's for finding studies by keyword rather than other criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'nih-reporter' or 'pubmed'), which prevents a perfect score.

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