US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('presidential nominations to federal offices') and the specific data fields returned, which helps the agent understand what information will be available. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output fields. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it easy to parse and 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?

For a read-only listing tool with full parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides sufficient context about what data is returned. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent must infer the exact response structure from the description alone, which is adequate but could be more explicit about data format or pagination.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'congress' numbering works or date format nuances). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no extra value.

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 with specific verbs ('List presidential nominations') and resources ('federal offices'), and explicitly lists the data fields returned ('nominee name, position, organization, and confirmation status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on nominations rather than bills, committees, or other congressional data.

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 implies usage for retrieving nomination data but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_nomination_details' or 'congress_nomination_full_profile' from the sibling list. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided.

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