Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source ('Semantic Scholar API Terms'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and the specific return structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with details on quality scores and citation metadata. Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description complements them without contradiction.

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 core functionality and return data, and the second adds source, update frequency, and output format details. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and output structure without needing to explain return values in detail.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or result ordering). This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search Semantic Scholar for academic papers') and resources ('academic papers'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source (Semantic Scholar) and the type of information returned (titles, abstracts, citation counts, links). It explicitly mentions the 'Katzilla envelope' structure, which differentiates it from other search tools that might return raw 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?

The description provides clear context for usage by specifying it's for academic papers and mentioning the data source and update frequency ('updates daily'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., science__arxiv or science__pubmed), which prevents a perfect score.

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