US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned ('jurisdiction and what actions they took') and listing specific action types ('referral, hearings, markup, reporting'), which helps the agent understand the tool's output format and capabilities.

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 communicates the tool's purpose and scope. Every element ('committees a bill was referred to', 'activity dates', 'jurisdiction', 'actions they took') earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read-only tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned (committees, activity dates, jurisdiction, specific actions). It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or any limitations, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and output scope.

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 fully documents all three parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 committees'), resource ('a bill was referred to'), and scope ('with activity dates'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'congress_bill_details' or 'congress_bill_actions' by focusing specifically on committee referral and activity information.

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 when committee referral and activity information is needed for a bill, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_bill_full_profile' or 'congress_bill_actions'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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