US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by listing the types of information returned (title, committees, witnesses, etc.), which helps the agent understand the richness of the output. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information...') and efficiently lists the included data points. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context by detailing the returned information. It covers the tool's purpose and output scope adequately. However, it lacks guidance on error cases or data availability, which could be helpful given the specificity of the parameters.

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 (number), chamber (enum), and event_id (ID format). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid congress numbers or how to find event_ids. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('detailed information about a specific committee meeting'), with specific examples of what information is included (title, committees, witnesses, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'congress_committee_meetings' (which likely lists meetings) by focusing on details for a single meeting.

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 implies usage by specifying it's for 'a specific committee meeting', suggesting it should be used when you have a particular meeting in mind. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'congress_committee_meetings' or provide prerequisites (e.g., needing the event_id).

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