Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return format ('Katzilla envelope'), explains quality scoring ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details citation components ('source URL, license, SHA-256 hash'), which are not captured in annotations. No contradiction with 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, and the second details the return format and its components. Every sentence adds 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 simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format details, which, combined with structured data, provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing additional explanation of return values.

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 one parameter ('limit') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as range constraints or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 top Hacker News story IDs'), resource ('via the Firebase API'), and source ('Hacker News (Public API)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'media__hacker-news' by specifying the Firebase API method and monthly update cadence, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 mentioning the source (Hacker News Public API) and update frequency (monthly), which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., other Hacker News tools), so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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