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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get details) without describing any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. The first sentence states the main function, and the second provides necessary context about partitioned treaties. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the key action, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a tool to retrieve treaty details with specific parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how the tool behaves (e.g., error handling for invalid inputs), or any prerequisites. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an AI 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Congress number', 'Treaty document number', 'Treaty partition letter'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by explaining that treaties can be 'divided into parts, each identified by a suffix,' which loosely relates to the 'treaty_suffix' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema, so it 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details about a partitioned treaty (one with a suffix letter like A, B, etc.).' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('partitioned treaty'), and explains what partitioned treaties are. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'congress_treaty_details' or 'congress_treaty_full_profile', which likely handle non-partitioned treaties, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 mentions that 'Some treaties are divided into parts,' but doesn't specify when to use this tool (e.g., for treaties with suffixes) versus other treaty-related tools in the sibling list. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool naming, leaving usage context unclear.

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