US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this (it describes a search/list operation). The description adds value by specifying the return fields and clarifying amendment type codes (hamdt, samdt, suamdt), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and return data without waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and effective.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, key parameters, and return fields, but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations providing safety context, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive for a search tool.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by explaining amendment type codes, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific verbs ('Search/list amendments') and resources ('by congress and optional type'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data returned ('amendment number, type, sponsor, purpose, and status'). It avoids tautology and is precise.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the congress parameter and amendment types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other congress_* tools like congress_search_bills). It provides some guidance on filtering but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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