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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool 'shows party affiliation and sponsorship details,' which gives some output context, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by the 'limit' parameter). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Get cosponsors of a specific amendment. Shows party affiliation and sponsorship details.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity of a congressional data tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format (beyond a vague mention of 'shows party affiliation and sponsorship details'). For a tool in this domain, more comprehensive guidance is needed to assist an AI agent effectively.

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, so the baseline score is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the meaning of amendment types like 'hamdt' or how amendment numbers are formatted). It only generically references 'a specific amendment,' which offers no extra semantic value.

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 cosponsors of a specific amendment.' It specifies the resource (cosponsors) and the action (get), and mentions the data returned (party affiliation and sponsorship details). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_bill_cosponsors' or 'congress_amendment_details,' which reduces the score from a 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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific amendment identifier, or compare it to related tools like 'congress_amendment_details' for general amendment information. This lack of contextual usage advice results in a low score.

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