US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what information is returned (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions), which helps the agent understand the output structure. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the tool returns full text or summaries. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds moderate value but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific committee report') and appends specific data elements. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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), the description is adequate but not complete. It specifies what data is returned, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't cover usage guidelines or behavioral nuances beyond the annotations. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but lacks depth in guiding the agent on optimal 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 descriptions for each parameter (congress number, report type with enum values, report number). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid report numbers or how to interpret the congress parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('detailed information about a specific committee report'), and lists specific data elements included (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions). It distinguishes from general committee report tools by focusing on details for a specific report, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'congress_committee_report_text' or 'congress_committee_reports' beyond the specificity implied.

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 a specific congress, report type, and number), nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'congress_committee_reports' (which might list reports) or 'congress_committee_report_text' (which might focus solely on text). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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