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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (OSTI.gov), update frequency (daily), and details the return structure (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation) including quality metrics and citation components like SHA-256 hash. This enhances transparency about data freshness and auditability.

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 covers purpose, source, and content types; the second details return format and quality metrics. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and 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 quality scoring), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, source, update frequency, and return structure, compensating well for any gaps. No further details are needed for effective 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 additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit implications. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('U.S. Department of Energy research publications from OSTI.gov'), and the specific content types ('journal articles, technical reports, conference papers, and dissertations'). It clearly distinguishes this as a search tool for DOE publications, differentiating it from other science tools like arXiv or PubMed that cover different sources.

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 DOE research publications, with the source specified as OSTI.gov. It mentions the data updates daily, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., science__arxiv for arXiv papers).

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