US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the required BioGuide ID and the default bill type, which is useful but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value without rich behavioral details.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a crucial prerequisite in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., bill details format), leaving a minor gap.

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 parameters. The description mentions the BioGuide ID requirement and implies the type parameter, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the 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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('bills sponsored or cosponsored by a specific member of Congress'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique focus on a member's bills, unlike other congress tools that handle amendments, committees, votes, etc.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating the prerequisite to 'use congress_search_members to find' the BioGuide ID. It also clarifies the scope ('sponsored or cosponsored'), helping differentiate from alternatives like congress_search_bills or congress_bill_details that don't filter by member.

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