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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses data source details (SIPRI via World Bank, CC BY-4.0 license), update frequency (annual), data lag (~2 years for end year), and output structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation including SHA-256 hash). No contradiction with 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 purpose and parameters, the second covers data source, updates, and output format. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., output envelope details, licensing, audit features) with zero wasted words, making it highly front-loaded and concise.

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 (3 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description of the Katzilla envelope), the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's function, data provenance, behavioral traits, and output structure without needing to detail 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 documentation for all parameters (country as ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code, from/to as years with ranges and defaults). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying year-range filtering without additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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: querying 'country-level military expenditure data from the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database' with specific parameters (country and year range) and output details (current USD and % of GDP). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'military__sipri-companies' and 'military__sipri-expenditure' by focusing on transfers/expenditure data rather than company information or other military metrics.

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 when to use this tool: for retrieving military expenditure data by country and year range, sourced via World Bank from SIPRI. It implies usage for data analysis or reporting needs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction is inferable from tool names.

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