Katzilla MCP

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it discloses the data source (CityBikes Free API), update frequency (monthly), and detailed return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's 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 states the purpose and source, the second details the return format and its components. Every element (e.g., data source, update frequency, envelope structure) serves a clear informational purpose without 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 simplicity (one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format, which, combined with structured fields, provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Get bike-sharing networks worldwide'), identifies the resource ('from the CityBikes API'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source and return format. It explicitly mentions the 'International Data Agent' context, which differentiates it from other tools in the list that focus on different domains like agriculture, consumer, crime, etc.

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: for accessing bike-sharing network data from a specific API (CityBikes) with monthly updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data, 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.