US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about return fields (bill number, title, etc.) and parameter constraints (congress numbers, bill types), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond the offset parameter.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and return fields, and another providing parameter examples. It is front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter examples could be more integrated.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and parameter context, but lacks details on output format or error handling. With annotations covering read-only safety, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing congress numbers and bill types with examples, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Search for bills') and resources ('in Congress'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on bill search rather than other congressional data like members, committees, or votes. It explicitly mentions search parameters (keyword, congress number, bill type) and return fields.

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 through parameter examples (e.g., congress numbers, bill types) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_search_members' or 'congress_summaries_search'. It provides context for parameters but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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