US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the nature of the resource ('permanent, final publication') and filtering capabilities, but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety, this 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential filtering information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what resource is being retrieved and how to filter it. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the limit parameter's role in results management.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by year, month, and day, which aligns with three of the four parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'bound Congressional Record issues', with additional specificity about it being 'the permanent, final publication of proceedings'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'congress_congressional_record' and 'congress_daily_congressional_record' by specifying the bound version.

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 about filtering by year, month, and day, indicating when to use this tool for date-specific queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different types of Congressional Record queries, 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.