Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (OpenAlex, CC0), update frequency (daily), and details about the return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation components. 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second details the return format. Every sentence adds critical information (search scope, source details, return structure) with zero waste, making it front-loaded and highly concise for easy comprehension by an AI agent.

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 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating well for any gaps. With annotations and output schema handling behavioral and output details, the description provides sufficient context for effective tool use.

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' and 'limit'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or limit implications). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra detail 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 specific action ('Search'), resource ('OpenAlex catalog of scholarly works — papers, articles, and preprints'), and scope ('by keyword'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'science__arxiv' or 'science__pubmed' by specifying the OpenAlex source and daily updates. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly suggests usage for keyword-based searches of scholarly works, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'science__arxiv' for arXiv-specific searches or 'science__semantic-scholar' for Semantic Scholar). It provides clear context (OpenAlex source, daily updates) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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