US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it describes a data retrieval tool). The description adds useful context about parameter requirements for AMNE stats, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data format specifics. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured bullet points for key parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 3 required) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains key parameter semantics and usage conditions. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail the return format or data structure, leaving a gap in understanding what the tool returns. It compensates well but could be more comprehensive regarding outputs.

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 parameters. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the DirectionOfInvestment options (e.g., 'Outward': U.S. investment abroad) and clarifying when ownership_level and non_bank_affiliates_only are required, which goes beyond the schema's enum-like descriptions. This provides helpful context for parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get data on Direct Investment (DI) and Activities of Multinational Enterprises (AMNE).' It specifies the verb ('Get data') and the resource ('Direct Investment' and 'Activities of Multinational Enterprises'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bea_gdp_by_industry or bea_international_investment by focusing on multinational enterprise data.

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 certain parameters (e.g., 'For AMNE stats, also set ownership_level...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bea_dataset_info for series IDs. It offers guidance on parameter dependencies but lacks explicit sibling tool comparisons or exclusion criteria.

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