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 context by specifying 'quarterly provisional' data, which hints at temporal scope and data freshness, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond the limit parameter in the schema.

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 main purpose in the first sentence and efficiently lists topics in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's scope without unnecessary details, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers what data is retrieved and the topics, but lacks output details (no output schema) and does not fully address usage context or behavioral nuances, though annotations help mitigate some gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for topic, race_ethnicity, and limit parameters. The description lists topics (e.g., 'General Fertility', 'Teen Birth') which aligns with the schema but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 quarterly provisional birth indicators') and resources (birth indicators like fertility rates, teen birth rates, etc.), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on CDC birth data rather than other datasets like BEA, BLS, or other CDC tools (e.g., cdc_causes_of_death, cdc_covid).

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 by listing topics (e.g., 'General Fertility', 'Teen Birth'), suggesting it's for retrieving specific birth-related indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other CDC tools like cdc_death_rates_historical) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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