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 valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope of returned data (full bio, party history, terms, committee assignments, photo URL, website), which helps the agent understand the richness of the output. No contradictions with annotations exist, and it implicitly confirms the read-only nature by describing data retrieval.

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 purpose and output, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent 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, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output scope effectively. However, it lacks explicit mention of potential errors (e.g., invalid ID handling) or rate limits, which could be useful for an agent, though annotations cover the safety aspect.

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 'bioguide_id' fully documented in the schema (including examples like 'P000197'). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning BioGuide ID and referencing the sibling tool for obtaining it, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('detailed information about a specific member of Congress'), specifying the exact data returned (bio, party history, terms, committee assignments, photo URL, website). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'congress_search_members' by indicating this tool is for details after obtaining an ID.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use congress_search_members first to find the BioGuide ID.' This clearly states when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID) and names the alternative tool for the prerequisite step, with no misleading or missing context.

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