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 behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the sorting behavior ('Sorted by last update date') and result content ('Results include the associated bill reference'), which are useful for the agent. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by differentiation from a sibling, filtering capabilities, sorting, and result content—all in four concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 (search with multiple filters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's scope, differentiation, key behaviors, and result format. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned results (e.g., fields in each summary), leaving a minor gap for the agent.

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 6 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by listing filterable fields ('Filter by congress, bill type, and date range') and mentioning sorting, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already specifies. 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 explicitly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('bill summaries across all bills and congresses'), and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('congress_bill_summaries') by clarifying the scope difference. This provides a specific and differentiated purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('search CRS summaries across the entire collection') versus an alternative ('Unlike congress_bill_summaries (which requires a specific bill)'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection based on the user's need for broad vs. specific searches.

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