US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what types of communications are included, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when parameters are omitted. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets baseline expectations.

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 - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and parameter semantics. Every word earns its place with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by parameter clarification.

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 that this is a read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what parameters it accepts. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings sufficiently for basic usage.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing the communication_type enum values with their meanings, which slightly enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum list. However, it doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('House communications'), specifying the exact types included (executive communications, memorials, presidential messages, petitions). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'congress_house_communication_details' by indicating it's a listing/querying function rather than a detail retrieval function.

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 context by listing the specific communication types available, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_house_communication_details' or 'congress_house_requirements'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use this tool.

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