US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the types of details returned (abstract, committees, etc.), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, keeping the score at a baseline level with annotations present.

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 ('Get detailed information...') and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) but no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what details are returned but doesn't cover the response format, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

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 all three parameters (congress number, communication type with enum, communication number). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 House communication', specifying key data points like abstract, committees, submitting agency, and legal authority. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'congress_house_communications' (which likely lists communications) by focusing on details for a single communication, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 congress, communication type, and number), exclusions, or related tools like 'congress_senate_communication_details' for Senate communications, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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