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 valuable context beyond this by specifying the return content ('full summary, authors, topics, related legislation, and format links'), which helps the agent understand the output structure. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient for good 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and effective.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It covers purpose, input context, and output content. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response format or error handling, but the current level is adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 the parameter 'report_number' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information'), resource ('a specific CRS report'), and key identifier ('by report number/ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'congress_crs_reports' (likely a list/search tool) by focusing on detailed retrieval for a single report.

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 when detailed information about a specific CRS report is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'congress_crs_reports' for listing reports) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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