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 full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter default is 20, max 250), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds some context about the report type but lacks operational details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides essential usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently includes only necessary 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read operation with clear parameters. It covers purpose, usage, and a key prerequisite, but could improve by mentioning behavioral aspects like pagination or response format. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the committee_code parameter's purpose (to specify the committee) but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('reports published by a specific committee'), specifying that these are 'formal committee reports accompanying legislation.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'congress_committees' as the tool to find the committee system code, avoiding overlap.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for reports from a specific committee) and when to use an alternative ('use congress_committees to find the committee system code'). This directly addresses the prerequisite step, making it clear how to obtain the required committee_code parameter.

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