US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'issues' and mentions filtering, which gives some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose important details like pagination behavior (implied by the 'limit' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid date parameters. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds moderate value but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 and well-structured: one sentence defines the purpose and resource, followed by a second sentence explaining the filtering capability. Every word earns its place with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates 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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, read-only operation), the description is adequate but has gaps. Annotations cover the read-only aspect, but there's no output schema, so the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., format of Congressional Record issues). The description covers the basic purpose and filtering but doesn't address potential edge cases, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving some contextual information missing.

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 all parameters (year, month, day, limit) well-documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by 'year, month, and day' which aligns with three parameters, and implies a retrieval operation, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 Congressional Record issues — the official daily record of debate, speeches, and proceedings in Congress.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Congressional Record issues'), and explains what the resource contains. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_bound_congressional_record' or 'congress_daily_congressional_record', which appear to be related Congressional Record tools.

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 some usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by year, month, and day'), which implies when to use this tool for date-based retrieval. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling Congressional Record tools or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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