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 specifying the types of hospital data available (quality ratings, mortality, etc.) and filtering options, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination (though limit parameter hints at it), or response format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Query CMS hospital data') followed by specific data types and filtering options. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true), and schema coverage is 100%, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the data scope and filtering, though it could benefit from mentioning response structure or limitations. For a read-only query tool with good schema support, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (dataset, state, city, limit). The description mentions 'Filter by state or city,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond it. It lists data types (e.g., mortality, readmissions) that correspond to dataset enum values, providing some context, but this is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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: 'Query CMS hospital data' with specific data types listed (general info, quality ratings, mortality, etc.). It distinguishes this as a hospital-specific tool among CMS siblings (cms_nursing_homes, cms_query, cms_search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them. The verb 'query' is appropriate for a read 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 context by listing filterable parameters ('Filter by state or city'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cms_query or cms_search. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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