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 annotations: it specifies the return format ('Katzilla envelope'), explains quality scores ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details citation information ('source URL, license, SHA-256 data hash'). This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting 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, followed by additional context in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and resource, the second specifies sorting and source, and the third details the return structure. It is efficiently written with no redundant information, making it easy to parse.

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 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return format, providing all necessary information for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to detail output 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 both parameters ('query' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., query syntax or limit implications). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here as the description does not compensate with extra semantic information.

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: 'Search INSPIRE-HEP for high-energy physics literature.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('INSPIRE-HEP'), and scope ('high-energy physics literature'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'science__arxiv' or 'science__pubmed' by focusing on a specific physics database. The mention of 'Returns papers sorted by most recent' further clarifies the output behavior.

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 searching HEP literature from INSPIRE-HEP. It implies usage by stating the source and update frequency ('Source: INSPIRE-HEP (CC0), updates daily'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. This gives adequate guidance without being exhaustive.

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