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 mentions the tool 'Get[s]' data and 'Shows' specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but does not address critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity of a government data tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral transparency, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 both parameters ('congress' and 'nomination_number') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%), and the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 printed hearings associated with a nomination' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('printed hearings'), and 'Shows hearing dates, citations, and chambers' adds detail about the returned information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_hearing_details' or 'congress_hearings', which likely serve related but distinct purposes, preventing 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 mentions what the tool does but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'congress_nomination_details' or 'congress_hearings', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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