Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('NIH RePORTER'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scores and citation components. 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 return details and source information in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the search action and scope, the second explains the return format and data provenance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return format, data source, and update frequency, leaving no significant gaps 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 input schema fully documents parameters (query, limit, fiscal_year). The description does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples or advanced usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Search'), resource ('NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) for funded research projects'), and scope ('by keyword'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health__nih-clinical-trials' or 'science__nsf-awards' by focusing on NIH-funded research projects with specific return fields. It provides a clear, specific purpose without tautology.

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 for searching NIH-funded research projects by keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other health or science tools in the sibling list). There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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