Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering core safety and behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the return format (Katzilla envelope), data quality metrics (freshness/uptime/confidence), citation details (source URL, license, SHA-256 hash), and update frequency (monthly). This significantly enhances 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details the return format and quality metrics. Every element adds value without redundancy, and key information (like the Katzilla envelope) is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is highly complete. It explains the unique return format, data quality aspects, and source characteristics, 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions search functionality generally but offers no additional syntax, format, or constraint information for the query or limit parameters.

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 ('Search the Internet Archive'), resources targeted ('books, media, and web archives'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source and return format. It goes beyond a generic search tool by mentioning the Katzilla envelope structure.

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 Internet Archive content but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the source and update frequency, which gives some context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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