US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that summaries are 'plain-English, non-partisan' and may have multiple versions, which helps the agent understand the output's nature and variability. It does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or destructive behavior, but with annotations covering safety, the added context is sufficient for a high score.

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 clarifying details. It uses two concise sentences with no wasted words, efficiently conveying key information about the summaries' nature and versioning. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (CRS summaries with version info), though there is no output schema. The description compensates by detailing the output's characteristics, making it suitable for the context without being exhaustive.

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 parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or examples for parameters). Given the high schema coverage, the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get CRS (Congressional Research Service) summaries of a bill.' It specifies the resource (CRS summaries of a bill), the verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on summaries rather than details, text, or other bill-related data. The mention of 'plain-English, non-partisan summaries written by CRS analysts' adds specificity.

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 by mentioning 'Multiple versions may exist (as introduced, as reported, as passed),' which suggests context for when to use it (to retrieve summaries across bill versions). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_bill_details' or 'congress_bill_text,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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