US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the type of information returned (abstract, committees, date), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, resulting in moderate transparency beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key return fields without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying what 'detailed information' includes, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return data but lacks context on usage, error handling, or output format. With annotations covering safety, it's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps for full agent guidance.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., congress number, communication type with enum values, communication number). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Senate communication'), and lists key data fields returned (abstract, committees, congressional record date). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_senate_communications' (which likely lists communications) or 'congress_house_communication_details' (which handles House communications), missing full sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific communication identifier), exclusions, or refer to related tools like 'congress_senate_communications' for browsing or other details tools for different data types, leaving usage context implied at best.

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