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 retrieval operation ('Get'). The description adds value by mentioning the tool's utility for cross-referencing, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for adding some context without rich behavioral details.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and its utility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and usage context adequately. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format or structure, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'limit' parameter's default or the 'bill_type' enum values. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('legislative subjects tagged on a bill, plus the primary policy area'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique focus on bill subjects and policy areas, unlike other tools that handle actions, amendments, or votes.

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 usage context by stating it's 'useful for finding all bills on a topic and for cross-referencing with lobbying data,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools for related tasks, such as congress_bill_details for general bill info.

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