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 valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope of returned fields (e.g., narrative if consented) and confirming it retrieves all details, which helps set expectations. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but annotations cover the safety aspect adequately.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameter, the second lists the scope of returned fields. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool with one parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the return scope and distinguishes from siblings, though it could mention error handling or data freshness. Given the low complexity and good annotations, it meets most contextual needs.

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, clearly documenting the complaint_id parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value by reinforcing that it's for a 'specific complaint by its Complaint ID', but does not provide additional details like format examples or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 verb ('Get full details') and resource ('for a specific complaint by its Complaint ID'), specifying it returns all fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cfpb_search_complaints (searching) or cfpb_complaint_aggregations (aggregating) by focusing on detailed retrieval of a single complaint.

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 a specific complaint ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cfpb_search_complaints (for searching without an ID) or cfpb_complaint_trends (for aggregated data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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