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 doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it shows 'what legislation has become law' and that it retrieves 'recently enacted' data with optional filtering. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy 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?

For a read-only tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned ('recently enacted laws', 'bills signed by the President'). It could be more complete by specifying what 'recent' means or describing the return format, but given the annotations and schema coverage, it's reasonably comprehensive.

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, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'law type (public or private)' which aligns with the law_type parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get recently enacted laws', 'filter by law type') and resources ('bills signed by the President'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on enacted laws rather than bills, amendments, or other legislative actions, making its scope unambiguous.

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 context by mentioning 'recently enacted laws' and filtering options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_search_bills or congress_law_details. It provides basic filtering guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusion criteria.

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