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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned communications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted 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 (a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned communications entail (e.g., format, content, or structure), nor does it address potential limitations or dependencies. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (committee_code and limit). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of committee codes beyond 'ssfr00' or context for the limit parameter. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Senate communications referred to a specific Senate committee'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_committee_house_communications' or 'congress_senate_communications', which handle similar data but for different contexts or scopes, preventing a perfect score.

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, such as other communications-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'congress_committee_house_communications' for House communications). It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual best practices, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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