US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it shows 'which categories are driving inflation,' which clarifies the analytical output beyond just raw data. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or source attribution, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 and efficient, using two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's function and analytical value without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool does and its purpose.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a read-only data retrieval tool. It covers the purpose and output interpretation, but could improve by mentioning data source (BLS) or typical use cases, though annotations provide some context via the title.

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 parameters 'start_year' and 'end_year' clearly documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 verbs ('Get a breakdown') and resources ('Consumer Price Index by component'), listing key categories like food, shelter, energy, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on CPI breakdown rather than other economic indicators like GDP or employment data, making its scope explicit.

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 for analyzing inflation drivers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bls_series_data' or 'bls_search_series' for other CPI-related queries. It provides context on what the tool shows but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings.

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