US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it 'fetches 8 endpoints in parallel' (indicating performance characteristics), returns a 'COMPLETE bill profile' (implying comprehensive data), and is for 'ONE call' (simplicity). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and ideal scenarios. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second paragraph could be slightly more concise (e.g., the cross-referencing list is detailed). Overall, most sentences earn their place by providing critical context without waste.

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 (aggregates 8 endpoints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what data is included and when to use it. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., format of the combined data) and any behavioral caveats (e.g., error handling for missing data), which would enhance completeness for such a multifaceted 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a COMPLETE bill profile in ONE call' and lists all included components (bill details, cosponsors, action timeline, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling tools by naming eight specific alternatives (congress_bill_details, congress_bill_actions, etc.) that it replaces, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this instead of calling congress_bill_details + congress_bill_actions + congress_bill_summaries + ... individually.' It also lists ideal use cases ('Complete legislative analysis, bill research, accountability investigations') and mentions cross-referencing with other tools (FEC, lobbying_search, FRED), giving clear context for when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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