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' (implying a read operation). The description adds context about the specific data returned (e.g., party breakdown, status), which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, which could be useful for the agent.

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 lists all key data points without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (3 required parameters) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It clearly outlines what data is returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning any limitations or dependencies, such as data availability for historical congresses.

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%, with clear descriptions for congress, bill_type, and bill_number parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid bill types or constraints on congress numbers. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific bill', specifying the exact data fields included: sponsors, cosponsors with party breakdown, actions, committees, and current status. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like congress_bill_actions or congress_bill_cosponsors by indicating it provides a comprehensive overview rather than isolated components.

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, such as congress_bill_full_profile or other bill-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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