US Government Open Data MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'version types and format URLs (PDF, HTML)', which hints at a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it's a safe read (no side effects), whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or error handling. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and key output details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output specifics.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and deeper parameter context. It meets a minimum viable standard but leaves 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameters identify a specific amendment but does not explain the meaning of 'amendment_type' enums (e.g., 'hamdt', 'samdt') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text versions for a specific amendment'), and specifies a temporal scope ('from 117th Congress onwards'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'congress_amendment_details' by focusing on text retrieval rather than general metadata, but does not explicitly contrast with 'congress_bill_text' or other text-related tools.

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 mentions a temporal constraint ('from 117th Congress onwards') but does not indicate prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest sibling tools like 'congress_amendment_details' for non-text information or 'congress_bill_text' for bill text instead of amendments.

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