US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool's scope (full timeline, including roll-call votes when available) and implies it returns historical data. However, it doesn't mention behavioral details like pagination (limit parameter) or rate limits, leaving some 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned actions) and doesn't mention the limit parameter's role, which could be helpful for users expecting large datasets.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number, limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as explaining bill_type enum values or format examples. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full action history / timeline for a bill'), specifying the scope ('every step from introduction through committee, floor votes, amendments, and signing') and additional data ('recorded roll-call vote numbers when available'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like congress_bill_details or congress_bill_votes by focusing on the complete chronological sequence of actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use congress_search_bills first to find the congress number, bill type, and bill number.' This directly addresses the prerequisite step and names the specific alternative tool to use beforehand, ensuring proper workflow.

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