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), licensing constraints (non-commercial free tier), update frequency (daily), and detailed output structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), which helps the agent understand behavioral traits like data freshness and auditability.

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 output format, all in three efficient sentences with zero waste. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., data source constraints, output structure), making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It adds necessary context like source limitations, update frequency, and output envelope details, which compensates for any gaps and ensures the agent can use the tool effectively 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'teamName' fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as search behavior (e.g., exact match vs. fuzzy) or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 for team information by name') and resources ('team details, stadium, badge, and social links'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data source (TheSportsDB) and output format (Katzilla envelope), which no other sports-related tools mention.

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 ('Search for team information by name from TheSportsDB'), including source limitations ('Free tier (non-commercial), updates daily'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sports__league-schedules' or 'sports__live-scores', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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