US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict as 'List' implies a read operation. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions that prints often include Rules Committee prints with bill text, but does not disclose other traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details. Both sentences are necessary—the first defines the tool, and the second provides examples that aid comprehension. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what committee prints are but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling. With no output schema, the description should ideally cover return values more explicitly, though the annotations provide some safety context.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'chamber' affects results or typical values for 'congress.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but no extra semantic context is given.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('committee prints'), and distinguishes the resource type from committee reports by explaining that prints are 'publications ordered by committees that are not committee reports.' It also provides a concrete example ('Rules Committee prints with bill text for floor consideration') that enhances understanding.

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. While it mentions that committee prints are distinct from committee reports, it does not reference any sibling tools (e.g., 'congress_committee_reports' or 'congress_committee_report_details') or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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