US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about table options and geographic scoping, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the data returns. With annotations covering the safety profile, this adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential table options and geographic parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and key options. It could benefit from mentioning the return format or data structure, but with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, it's mostly complete for a data retrieval tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing table options and giving geo_fips examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('gross domestic product for U.S. states from BEA Regional dataset'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bea_gdp_national' by specifying state-level data and from 'bea_gdp_by_industry' by focusing on geographic rather than industry breakdowns.

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 about when to use this tool (for state GDP data) and offers table options with defaults, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The geo_fips explanation helps guide usage but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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