Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return format ('Katzilla envelope'), explains quality metrics ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details the citation component ('source URL, license, SHA-256 hash'), which are not covered by 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second explains the return format and its components. 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 low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by mention of return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and output structure adequately for an agent to use it correctly.

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 (startDate and endDate in YYYY-MM-DD format, max 7 days apart). The description mentions 'date range' but does not add further semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or constraints not in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('near-Earth asteroid (NEO) data'), specifying the source (NASA's NeoWs API) and scope (date range). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on asteroid data, unlike other space tools like 'nasa-apod' or 'nasa-exoplanets'.

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 ('for a given date range') and mentions the data source and update frequency ('updates daily'), which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as for non-asteroid space data.

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