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 describing a lookup/find operation. The description adds useful context about the types of bill relationships identified, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 core functionality with specific examples, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mostly complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and its use case. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of related bill results) and any limitations (e.g., data availability by congress), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format for bill_type enum values or typical congress number ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find related/companion bills') and resources ('bills'), and explicitly distinguishes its scope by listing the types of relationships it identifies (House-Senate companion bills, identical bills, bills with related provisions). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on bill relationships rather than bill details, amendments, or other legislative aspects.

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 ('Useful for tracking legislation across chambers'), which implies it should be used when cross-chamber bill relationships are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools (e.g., congress_bill_details for individual bill information), which prevents a perfect score.

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