Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (Sunrise-Sunset API), update frequency (daily), and output structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details). Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description appropriately supplements with operational details 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source and output details in two efficient sentences. Every element (e.g., API source, update frequency, return format) adds value without redundancy, making it compact and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update behavior, and output format, providing sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return values.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents parameters (lat, lng, date). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'latitude/longitude and date' but does not provide additional details like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states. 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get sunrise, sunset, and twilight times') and resources ('for a given latitude/longitude and date'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like weather or environmental APIs. It identifies the source (Sunrise-Sunset API) and output format (Katzilla envelope), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies usage by specifying the required inputs (latitude/longitude and date) and the daily update frequency, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., weather APIs for broader data or other science tools). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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