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 ('National Vulnerability Database'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and detailed return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality metrics and audit information). Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so this extra context about data freshness and output structure is helpful.

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 the second explains the return format and data quality. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its data source, update frequency, and return format—sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it effectively.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'keyword' but doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., search strategies or keyword examples). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the NIST National Vulnerability Database for CVEs by keyword') and resource ('CVEs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its domain (security vulnerabilities) and data source (NIST NVD), which none of the listed siblings cover.

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 ('Search the NIST National Vulnerability Database for CVEs by keyword'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. The context implies it's for vulnerability research, but no exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons are stated.

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