Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (World Bank, SIPRI indicator), license (CC BY-4.0), update frequency (annual), and return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details). This enhances transparency about data provenance and output structure.

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 core purpose and scope, and the second provides essential metadata about data source, updates, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise for quick understanding.

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 (querying a specialized database), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It adds necessary context about data sourcing, licensing, and output structure, compensating adequately where structured fields might not fully convey operational details.

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 detailed descriptions for 'country' (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code or 'all'), 'from' (start year), and 'to' (end year with lag note). The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying year-range filtering. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Query SIPRI Military Expenditure Database for global defense spending data by country and year range.' It specifies the exact resource (SIPRI database), verb (query), and scope (global defense spending), distinguishing it from sibling tools like military__sipri-companies and military__sipri-transfers which handle different military data aspects.

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: 'Annual data available from 1960 to present' and 'SIPRI data lags ~2 years' in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like economic__world-bank or other military tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive for sibling differentiation.

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