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 behavioral context by specifying the tool lists reports with filtering capabilities and notes its criticality for legislative history, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter) or rate limits, leaving some gaps in full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and filters, and the second explains the tool's importance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key filters, and domain relevance. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values or format, which is a minor gap. The annotations and high schema coverage help compensate, making it mostly adequate for 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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions filtering by congress, report type, and conference flag, which aligns with the schema but does not add significant meaning beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, and the description provides minimal additional parameter insight.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('committee reports'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'formal reports accompanying legislation reported out of committee.' It also highlights the tool's critical role in 'understanding committee intent and legislative history,' which adds domain-specific value beyond a basic list operation.

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 implies usage by mentioning filterable parameters (congress, report type, conference flag), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include other committee-related tools (e.g., congress_committee_reports_for_committee, congress_committee_report_details), there is no guidance on selecting among them, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter needs.

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