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 by specifying the data source, update frequency, and return format details (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info), which aids in understanding behavior 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 source and output details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations provided, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the source, update frequency, and return format, which suffices for an agent to use it correctly without needing additional details from structured fields.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on output and context, which aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('spacecrafts launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on ISRO spacecraft launches, unlike other science tools like arXiv or NASA-related ones.

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 by specifying the source ('ISRO API (Public)') and update frequency ('updates daily'), which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as other space-related tools like 'space__launch-schedule'.

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