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 value by specifying the type of information returned ('detailed information... including all Senate actions'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, leaving behavioral gaps despite 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 includes key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (read-only with two parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies the information returned but does not cover output format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations providing safety context, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for agent usage.

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 both parameters ('congress' and 'treaty_number'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific treaty'), specifying the scope ('including all Senate actions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'congress_treaties' (likely a list tool) and 'congress_treaty_full_profile' (might be broader), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'congress_treaty_full_profile' or 'congress_treaty_partitioned_details' is provided. The description implies usage for detailed treaty info but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering minimal practical direction.

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