Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('data.europa.eu'), update frequency ('daily'), and details the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with quality metrics and citation info, which is not covered by 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 return format specifics. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides source and update info, and the third explains the output structure concisely 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 complexity (search with parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds necessary context like source, update frequency, and return format details, which complements the structured data 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search the European Union open data portal for datasets.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('datasets'), and source ('data.europa.eu'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'meta__datagov-catalog' or other domain-specific tools by focusing on EU open data.

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 context by mentioning 'Search the European Union open data portal for datasets' and 'updates daily,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other data catalog tools in the list). No exclusions or specific prerequisites are provided.

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