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 value by listing the types of details returned (protocol, eligibility criteria, etc.), which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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 a concise list of returned details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only), the description is complete enough for basic use. It covers purpose, input context, and output scope. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure, though the listed details provide adequate guidance for this simple tool.

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 the single parameter 'nct_id' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by NCT ID' but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or validation rules, meeting the baseline for 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific clinical trial'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'clinical_trials_search' by specifying retrieval by NCT ID rather than search functionality.

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 when to use this tool (to get full details for a specific trial by NCT ID) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling 'clinical_trials_search'. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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