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 (World Bank), update frequency (daily), return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation), and audit details (SHA-256 hash), enhancing transparency 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source details and return format, all in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the query scope, and the second clarifies data provenance and output structure, with zero redundant information.

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 (query with pagination), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, updates, and output details, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand tool behavior without needing further explanation.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters (indicator, year, page, limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining indicator meanings or pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators', listing all six specific indicators (Voice & Accountability, Political Stability, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on governance indicators, whereas siblings like economic__world-bank cover broader economic data, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 for querying governance indicators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other security or economic tools). It mentions the source and update frequency, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios or exclusions for tool selection.

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