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 value by specifying the types of details returned (legal authority, frequency, etc.) and mentioning 'matching communications count,' which gives context about the data scope. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations, the bar is lower.

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 purpose and lists key details without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying what 'detailed information' includes.

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 complexity (simple read with one parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the data returned, though it could mention response format or error handling. With annotations covering safety, it's adequate for agent use.

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 'requirement_number' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples beyond the schema's 'e.g., 8070' or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('about a specific House requirement'), listing key data points like legal authority, frequency, nature, and matching communications count. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., 'congress_house_requirements' likely lists requirements, while this provides details for one).

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 info on a House requirement is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'congress_house_requirements' (which might list them) or 'congress_house_requirement_matching_communications' (which focuses on communications). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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