Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description specifies the source (Bureau of Transportation Statistics), update frequency (daily), and the return format (Katzilla envelope with data, quality, citation including source URL, license, and SHA-256 hash). This provides practical details on data freshness, auditability, and output structure that annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, data source, update frequency, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (a data retrieval tool with one parameter), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data source, update behavior, and output structure, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 'limit' parameter clearly documented as 'Number of records to return' with a default of 20. The description does not add any further details about parameters, such as typical usage or constraints, but since the schema already provides complete information, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or add extra value in this area.

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: 'Get U.S. transportation statistics from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' with specific examples like 'airline on-time performance, traffic data, and transport metrics.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the data source (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) and domain (transportation), which is distinct from other categories like agriculture, consumer, crypto, 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: for accessing U.S. transportation statistics from a specific public source that updates daily. It implies usage by mentioning the data source and update frequency, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data, such as other transport-related sibling tools like 'transport__bc-ferries' or 'transport__eurostat-transport.'

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