US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation ('Get information'). The description adds useful context about the tool's scope (congresses and sessions) and use cases, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in extra behavioral insight.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with a clear usage example in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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, annotations covering read-only safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but could improve by hinting at the return format (e.g., structured data on congresses) or error handling, though not strictly required. It adequately supports agent invocation within the provided 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 100% description coverage, fully documenting all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate with extra semantic 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get information') and resources ('congresses and their sessions'), listing concrete data points like 'start/end dates, session numbers, and chambers'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on congressional metadata rather than bills, members, or other legislative data, making its scope unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('to look up when a congress was in session, or get current congress details'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as those for bills or members, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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