US Government Open Data MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('formatted text and PDF URLs') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no 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—two brief sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy 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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return structure, which are needed for full agent understanding.

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%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline expectation without compensating for any gaps.

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 report.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('committee report'), and output format ('text versions'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_committee_report_details' or 'congress_committee_print_text', which handle related but distinct data types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context for selecting this over other report-related tools, or any constraints on usage, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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