US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that details are retrieved for a 'specific' committee print, implying it returns metadata rather than full content. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are gaps given the lack of output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and specifies the resource and parameters without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (3 required parameters) and annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output details (no schema), doesn't explain what 'details' include, and provides no usage context. With annotations, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete for effective agent use.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Congress number', 'Chamber', 'Jacket number'). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning these parameters in context ('by congress, chamber, and jacket number'), but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'Get details about a specific committee print' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'committee print'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'congress_committee_prints' (which likely lists prints) and 'congress_committee_print_text' (which likely retrieves text content). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, missing full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting this over similar tools (e.g., 'congress_committee_prints' for listings or 'congress_committee_print_text' for content), or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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