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 (TheSportsDB), update frequency (daily), tier constraints (Free tier, non-commercial), and the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), which helps the agent understand behavioral traits like freshness and licensing.

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 defaults, and the second details the source, constraints, and return format. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded 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 (2 parameters, no nested objects), high schema coverage (100%), comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema (implied by mention of return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, source details, and behavioral context, leaving no gaps for the agent to operate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (leagueId and season) fully documented in the schema, including defaults and examples. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or additional constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 specific action ('Get all events for a league season'), resource ('from TheSportsDB'), and scope ('Defaults to English Premier League current season'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sports__live-scores' and 'sports__team-info' by focusing on league schedules rather than real-time scores or team details.

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 (to retrieve league event schedules from TheSportsDB) and mentions the default league and season. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, such as when needing real-time scores versus historical schedules.

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