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 this by specifying the scope ('all titles') and types of titles returned, which clarifies what data is retrieved. It does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter), but with annotations covering the safety profile, the description compensates well by detailing the output content.

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 details, and the second provides a practical use case with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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), rich annotations (readOnlyHint=true), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, but lacks an output schema, so it doesn't detail return values like title formats or structure. However, the description's clarity on title types partially mitigates this, making it sufficient for agent understanding.

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 each parameter (e.g., 'Congress number', 'Bill type', 'Bill number', 'Max results'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining format details or dependencies. However, since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all titles for a bill'), specifies the types of titles included (short, official, display, text version titles), and distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings by focusing on title retrieval rather than bill details, actions, or summaries. It explicitly mentions a use case ('finding the popular name of legislation') with an example ('Inflation Reduction Act'), making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 the tool ('Useful for finding the popular name of legislation'), which helps the agent understand its primary application. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., congress_bill_details, congress_bill_summaries), leaving some ambiguity about tool selection in broader workflows.

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