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 useful context about data currency ('data through early 2023') and state abbreviation format, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and data scope, while the second provides essential format guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: purpose, data scope, and format guidance. With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could better address sibling tool differentiation.

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 both parameters ('state' and 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the state abbreviation format but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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: 'Get COVID-19 weekly case and death counts by state' with specific data scope ('data through early 2023'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('COVID-19 weekly case and death counts'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdc_weekly_deaths' or 'cdc_query' beyond the state-level focus.

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 context by specifying state-level data and date range ('data through early 2023'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdc_weekly_deaths' or 'cdc_query'. The state abbreviation format is mentioned, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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