US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned ('detailed information about a committee' and 'membership'), it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key parameter (congress number), and sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error conditions). It compensates somewhat with clear sibling differentiation, but for a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, it should provide more context about what 'detailed information' entails.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (congress, chamber, committee_code) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by congress number, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information'), resource ('about a committee'), and key differentiator ('filtered by a specific congress number'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'congress_committee_details' by noting it shows membership for that specific congress versus all-time details.

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. It states 'Shows membership for that specific congress vs. all-time details from congress_committee_details,' directly naming the sibling tool and clarifying the use case (specific congress filtering vs. all-time details).

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