US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the tool's utility for tracking bill outcomes (dying in committee vs. getting reported out), which helps the agent understand the tool's practical application. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance and practical context. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the essential information.

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, complete schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidance, and practical application. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably well for a read-only query tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (like explaining committee_code format beyond the examples already provided in schema). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Get bills referred to') and resource ('a specific committee'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_committees (which finds committee codes) and congress_bill_details (which provides bill details). It precisely defines the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use congress_committees to find the committee system code' and includes a practical application note ('Useful for tracking which bills die in committee vs. get reported out'). This gives clear context for tool selection and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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