US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool combines '3 endpoints in parallel,' which adds useful context about its internal operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage guidelines, and ideal scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (combining multiple endpoints) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and when to use it. However, it falls short in fully compensating for the missing behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling), which would be needed for complete contextual understanding.

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 information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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: 'Get a COMPLETE treaty profile in ONE call — combines treaty details, full action timeline, and committee assignments (3 endpoints in parallel).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('treaty profile'), and scope ('complete'), and distinguishes it from siblings by naming alternatives ('congress_treaty_details + congress_treaty_committees').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use this instead of calling congress_treaty_details + congress_treaty_committees individually.' It also includes an 'Ideal for' section that specifies use cases ('International agreement research and Senate Foreign Relations Committee tracking'), offering clear context for selection.

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