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 value by specifying what the tool returns ('version types and format URLs') and clarifying it does not provide full text content. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for adding some context.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded with essential information 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 (3 required parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It clarifies the tool's scope versus its sibling, describes the return value, and provides necessary usage guidance. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains what is returned.

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., no examples of valid bill numbers or congress ranges). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 available text versions for a bill' with specific examples (e.g., introduced, reported, engrossed, enrolled). It distinguishes from sibling 'govinfo_bill_text' by specifying it returns version types and format URLs, not full text content. This is a specific verb+resource combination with explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'For full bill text content, use govinfo_bill_text.' This clearly defines the boundary between this tool (metadata about text versions) and its sibling (actual content), helping the agent choose correctly.

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