US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying the types of communications listed, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to state the purpose and list types, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function and parameters.

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 (a read-only list operation with 3 parameters), annotations cover safety, and schema coverage is high, the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema details (e.g., what fields are returned), but for a list tool with good annotations and schema, it provides sufficient context. However, it could improve by mentioning default behaviors or result structure.

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 descriptions for all parameters (congress, communication_type, limit). The description adds minimal value by listing the communication types, which is already covered in the schema's enum for communication_type. It does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resources ('Senate communications'), and distinguishes the types of communications (executive communications, presidential messages, petitions/memorials). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on Senate communications, which is distinct from other tools like congress_house_communications or congress_committee_senate_communications in the sibling list.

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 by listing the communication types (ec, pm, pom), suggesting when to use it for those specific categories. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., congress_senate_communication_details for details on a specific communication), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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