US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the specific data domains (five-star ratings, quality measures, etc.) and the state filtering capability, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase. Every word earns its place - it specifies what data is queried, lists the key data types, and mentions the primary filtering capability in a single efficient sentence with zero waste.

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 query tool with read-only annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what data is available. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the return values look like (structure, format, or content), which would be helpful for an agent to understand the results. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'what comes back'.

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 already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'Filter by state' which aligns with the 'state' parameter, but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 nursing home data' with specific data types listed (provider info, five-star ratings, quality measures, health deficiencies/citations). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the CMS nursing home domain, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar query tools like 'cms_query' or 'cms_search' that might also handle nursing home data.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning 'Filter by state' which implies when state filtering is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cms_query' or 'cms_search' (which are sibling tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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