Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the data source ('GOV.UK (Open Government Licence)'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), and output structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scoring and citation components. This enriches 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source details and output explanation in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies output structure and audit features. No wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 quality metrics), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and output format, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand tool behavior and context.

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 described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Search'), resource ('UK government website GOV.UK for content'), and scope ('International Data Agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'government__data-uk' or 'government__govinfo-search' by specifying the source and international context. It's specific and avoids 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 provides clear context for usage ('Search the UK government website GOV.UK for content') and mentions the source and update frequency, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'government__data-uk' or 'media__gnews'. It implies usage for UK government content searches.

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