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 context by specifying the types of information returned (title, date, committees, etc.), which helps set expectations beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key return attributes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and return attributes well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With annotations covering safety, it's minimally viable but could be more complete by explaining when to use it or any constraints.

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 clear descriptions for 'congress', 'chamber', and 'jacket_number'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies these parameters identify a hearing but doesn't explain their semantics or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the resource 'detailed information about a specific hearing', listing specific attributes like title, date, committees, etc. It distinguishes from general 'congress_hearings' (which likely lists hearings) by focusing on details for a specific hearing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other detail-oriented sibling tools like 'congress_committee_meeting_details' or 'congress_amendment_details', though the context is clear.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific hearing identifier), exclusions, or refer to other tools for related tasks like searching hearings or getting committee details. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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