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. It states the tool returns 'formatted text and PDF URLs', which hints at a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's safe/non-destructive. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with zero 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the purpose and output. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, 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 (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 all three parameters (congress, chamber, jacket_number) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format clarifications, or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 text versions for a committee print' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('text versions for a committee print'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'congress_committee_print_details' (which likely returns metadata) by focusing on formatted text and PDF URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'congress_committee_report_text' or other text-retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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 (e.g., needing congress/chamber/jacket_number identifiers from other tools), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'congress_committee_report_text' or 'congress_bill_text'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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