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 aligns with by using 'Get' (implying a read operation). The description adds context by specifying data sources (BEA Regional dataset) and table-specific details (LineCode mappings), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured table options and LineCode details. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the LineCode information more seamlessly with the table descriptions.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich schema/annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data options, and key parameter contexts, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or examples, which would enhance completeness for a tool without an output schema.

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 thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing table options and LineCode mappings, which partially overlap with schema details but provide a concise overview. No new parameter semantics beyond the schema are introduced.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('personal income data by state from BEA Regional dataset'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the dataset type (BEA Regional) and data focus (personal income), unlike other tools like 'bea_gdp_by_state' or 'bls_employment_by_industry'.

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 on when to use this tool by detailing table options (SAINC1, SAINC3, SAINC4) and their specific use cases, such as 'Personal income summary' or 'Per capita personal income only'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the table options imply internal alternatives.

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