US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Shows amendments,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences that directly state the tool's function and clarify the resource. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of sub-amendments with details), behavioral traits like safety or pagination, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output guidance, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameters (congress, amendment_type, amendment_number, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that 'amendment_number' refers to the parent amendment. This meets the baseline of 3 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: 'Get sub-amendments to a specific amendment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sub-amendments'), and adds clarifying context about what sub-amendments are ('amendments that modify the parent amendment'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_amendments' or 'congress_bill_amendments', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'congress_amendments' for general amendments or 'congress_bill_amendments' for bill-related amendments) or specify prerequisites like needing a parent amendment identifier. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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