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 discloses the data source ('iDigBio (CC0 / CC-BY)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and detailed return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with quality metrics and citation details, which are 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 in the first sentence, followed by essential details (source, updates, return format) in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it efficiently conveys necessary information 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 structured output), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (implied by return format description), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, source, update frequency, and detailed return structure, compensating well for any gaps without needing to repeat schema 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' as scientific name and 'limit' with range/default). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as query syntax examples or limit implications, but the schema adequately documents parameters, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Search'), resource ('iDigBio biodiversity specimen database'), and scope ('by scientific name'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns 'digitized natural history collection records'—a unique focus among the listed science tools like arXiv or PubMed, which handle academic papers rather than specimen 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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Search the iDigBio biodiversity specimen database by scientific name'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., science__openalex for general research). The context is well-defined, though lacking exclusion criteria.

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