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 context by specifying the required parameters (congress, amendment_type, amendment_number), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists required parameters without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to tool understanding.

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 (3 required parameters), high schema coverage (100%), and annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return structure (e.g., 'detailed information' is vague). It adequately covers usage but leaves output details implicit.

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%, with each parameter documented in the schema. The description mentions the three required parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining 'hamdt' vs 'samdt' or format examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific amendment'), specifying the scope ('including its actions/timeline'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'congress_amendments' (likely a list) or 'congress_amendment_text' (text-only) by emphasizing comprehensive details.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get detailed information about a specific amendment'), but does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among its many siblings (e.g., 'congress_amendment_text' for text only). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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