US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination via 'page_size' and that it 'Shows all labor categories and rates,' but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the data is real-time. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read tool with two parameters. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, error cases, or system constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining that 'contract_number' is for a 'GSA MAS contract' and that results include 'all labor categories and rates,' providing context beyond the schema's technical details. However, it doesn't add syntax or format details for parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all ceiling rates for a specific GSA MAS contract'), specifying it retrieves labor categories and rates by contract number. It distinguishes from sibling 'calc_search_rates' by focusing on a specific contract rather than a search operation.

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 you have a contract number and need its rates, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'calc_search_rates' or provide exclusions. It gives basic context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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