US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about what data is returned (sponsors, purposes, status) and the practical use case ('tracking how bills are modified'), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality and key data fields, while the second provides practical context and an example. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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, 3 required), complete schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could better explain the return format (e.g., list structure, data fields beyond those mentioned). The practical example adds value but doesn't fully compensate for missing output details.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying the tool requires bill identification (congress, bill_type, bill_number) and returns amendment data. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Get amendments filed'), target resource ('on a specific bill'), and key data returned ('amendment sponsors, purposes, and status'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'congress_amendments' (general amendments) and 'congress_amendment_details' (single amendment details) by focusing on bill-specific amendments with tracking context.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Critical for tracking how bills are modified'), implying it's for monitoring legislative changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools (e.g., 'congress_amendments' for broader amendment searches), though the bill-specific focus is strongly implied.

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