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 doesn't contradict. The description adds context about what types of meetings are included (hearings, markups, etc.) and what data is returned, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by limit parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for an agent.

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 communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and key filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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 (list operation with filtering), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what's being listed and the main filtering dimensions. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by mentioning what data is returned (dates, locations, topics).

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by congress and chamber, which aligns with two parameters, but doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 'List' and resource 'committee meetings', specifies the types of meetings included (hearings, markups, etc.), and lists the key data returned (dates, locations, and topics). It distinguishes this tool from other congress_committee_* siblings by focusing on meetings rather than bills, members, or other committee-related data.

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 implied usage by mentioning filtering by congress and chamber, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_hearings or congress_committee_meeting_details. No guidance is given about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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