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. It mentions that 'Some nominations contain multiple positions (ordinals)' and references another tool for ordinal numbers, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and provides a usage guideline, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read/write nature, error handling) and output format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, more context would be beneficial.

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 already documents all parameters (congress, nomination_number, ordinal, limit). The description adds some semantic context by explaining that 'Some nominations contain multiple positions (ordinals)' and implies ordinal is used to specify a position, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers (e.g., typical values, examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of nominees for a specific position within a nomination.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('nominees'), and scope ('specific position'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_nomination_details' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite for ordinal numbers.

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 for usage: 'Use congress_nomination_details first to see the ordinal numbers.' This gives a prerequisite and hints at when to use this tool (after obtaining ordinal numbers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives for similar functions.

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