Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('Crossref (Public)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with explanations of quality scores and citation components). Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description enriches this with practical operational details.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it starts with the core purpose, adds key details (source, updates, return format), and explains the envelope components concisely without unnecessary words.

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 functionality with structured returns), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return format details, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description does not add specific meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'query' and 'limit', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting without additional param semantics in the description.

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 with specific verbs ('Search Crossref for scholarly works by keyword') and resources ('scholarly works'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'science__arxiv' or 'science__pubmed' by specifying the data source (Crossref) and the type of information returned (DOIs, titles, authors, citation counts).

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 ('Search Crossref for scholarly works by keyword') and implicitly suggests when to use it (for scholarly research), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'science__arxiv' or 'science__pubmed'), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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