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 full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for tracking,' implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides context. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose and context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema. For a read-only query tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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. The description adds minimal value by implying 'committee_code' is for Senate committees (e.g., 'ssju00' for Judiciary) and that nominations are typically Senate-related, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('nominations referred to a specific committee'), specifies the scope ('judicial or agency head nominations'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on committee-specific nominations rather than general nomination listings (e.g., 'congress_nominations').

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 ('tracking judicial or agency head nominations before a particular Senate committee'), implying when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'congress_nominations' for all nominations), 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.