US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') and hints at filtering by requirement, but does not cover critical aspects like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and scope.

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 complexity (a filtering tool for legislative data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the communications contain, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination or errors. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('requirement_number' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of requirement numbers or context for the limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get communications that match a specific House requirement.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('communications'), and context ('House requirement'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_house_communications' or 'congress_house_communication_details', which is why it's not a 5.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions 'agency submissions fulfilling a recurring reporting obligation,' which implies a context of compliance reporting. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'congress_house_communications' for broader queries) or any prerequisites, leaving gaps in practical application.

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