Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('FCC ECFS'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and detailed return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }' with quality metrics and citation details). While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 purpose and source, the second explains the return format. Every element adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and detailed return format, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all three parameters (limit, proceedings, query). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, 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 ('Search FCC ECFS'), resource ('public filings and comments on telecommunications proceedings'), and scope ('returns the Katzilla envelope'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on FCC telecommunications proceedings, unlike other tools covering agriculture, consumer, crime, etc.

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 FCC ECFS for public filings and comments on telecommunications proceedings'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related searches, though the sibling list shows many other government data tools that serve different domains.

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