US Government Open Data MCP

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description mentions what fields are shown (topic, date, status), which provides useful output context not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), sorting defaults, or whether results are filtered by default congress. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information. The single sentence efficiently communicates the core functionality and output fields without any wasted words. Every part of the description earns its place by specifying what the tool does and what information it returns.

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 (4 parameters, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't address output format, pagination, or error conditions. With no output schema, the description could better explain the structure of returned treaty data. The annotations cover safety, but more behavioral context would be helpful for a listing tool with multiple filtering parameters.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., that 'congress' filters which treaties are listed, while date filters apply to update dates) or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'List treaties submitted to the Senate' with specific output fields (topic, date transmitted, ratification status). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('treaties submitted to the Senate'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_treaty_details' or 'congress_treaty_full_profile', which likely provide more detailed information about individual treaties rather than listing them.

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 sibling tools like 'congress_treaty_details' for detailed treaty information or 'congress_search_bills' for broader legislative searches. There's no context about when this listing tool is appropriate versus more specific treaty tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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