Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation), explains what quality scores represent (freshness/uptime/confidence), and details citation contents (source URL, license, SHA-256 hash). While annotations cover read-only/non-destructive/idempotent aspects, the description provides important implementation details about data structure and audit capabilities.

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 and data characteristics, the second explains return format and components. While slightly dense, every element serves a purpose without redundancy. It could be slightly more streamlined but remains 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 moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers data source, update frequency, return format structure, and quality metrics - addressing what the structured fields don't explicitly state while avoiding redundancy.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (year with range/lag context, limit with default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without enhancing 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 tool's purpose: retrieving top military spending countries ranked by defense expenditure from the SIPRI database. It specifies the data source (World Bank/SIPRI), update frequency (annual), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on companies/expenditure ranking rather than other military data types like transfers or expenditure details.

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 through the mention of 'Top military spending countries' and annual updates, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'military__sipri-expenditure' or 'military__sipri-transfers'. It provides some implicit guidance through the data scope but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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