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. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (NHTSA), update frequency (daily), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation metadata including SHA-256 hash). This enhances transparency about 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and parameters, the second details the return format and data quality. Every sentence provides essential information with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and highly concise.

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 (search with three parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data source, update frequency, and return format details, which complements the structured fields effectively without redundancy.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema. The description mentions searching by make, model, and year, which aligns with the schema but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 searches U.S. vehicle safety recalls from NHTSA by make, model, and year. It specifies the exact resource (NHTSA recalls) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhtsa-complaints and nhtsa-safety-ratings by focusing on recalls rather than complaints or ratings.

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 implies usage when searching for recalls by vehicle attributes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nhtsa-complaints or nhtsa-safety-ratings. It mentions the data source and update frequency, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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