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 states the tool 'Get committees' and 'Shows committee activities', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, which are critical for a tool with no structured annotations.

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: a single sentence that directly states the purpose and key output details. There is no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. With no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a read operation.

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, with parameters 'congress' and 'nomination_number' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 committees associated with a nomination' specifies the verb (get) and resource (committees for nominations). It adds detail about what the committees show ('committee activities (referral, hearing, discharge)'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_committee_details' or 'congress_nomination_details', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'congress_nomination_details' or 'congress_committee_details'. The user is left to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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