US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds context about the data scope ('recurring reporting obligations') and output fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide. 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, resource, and output fields without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List House requirements') and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what data it returns. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema by detailing the return format, though annotations provide some safety context.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting 'limit' as 'Max results (default: 20)'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as typical values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 requirements'), specifies what these requirements are ('recurring reporting obligations from executive agencies to Congress'), and details the output fields ('requirement number, frequency, and matching communications count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_house_requirement_details or congress_house_requirement_matching_communications, which focus on specific details rather than listing.

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 does not mention sibling tools like congress_house_requirement_details for detailed views or congress_house_requirement_matching_communications for related communications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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