Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (TheSportsDB), usage restrictions ('Free for non-commercial use'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), and output format details ('Returns the Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality scores and citation info). 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 covers purpose, filtering, and return details; the second adds source, usage terms, and output format specifics. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise for quick agent comprehension.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, source details, and output structure, providing all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to explain return values explicitly.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('date' and 'sport'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by 'date and sport' but does not provide additional details like example sport values or date range constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Upcoming sports events from TheSportsDB. Filter by date and sport. Returns event details including teams, league, venue, and schedule.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('upcoming sports events'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on TheSportsDB source and filtering capabilities, unlike other sports tools like 'sports__league-schedules' or 'sports__live-scores'.

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: 'Filter by date and sport' and notes the source is 'Free for non-commercial use, updates monthly.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'sports__openligadb' for different data sources, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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