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. It describes the return content (body, component, etc.) and that it's a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. For a read tool with no annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and parameter, the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse 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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter context, and return content. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or response format, but the gaps are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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% for the single parameter 'uuid', with the schema providing a clear description. The description adds context by noting the UUID comes 'from search results', which helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and usage, adding value beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('full text of a specific DOJ blog entry'), specifying it retrieves complete content including body, component, topic, date, and URL. It distinguishes from sibling 'doj_blog_entries' by focusing on a single entry via UUID rather than listing/searching entries.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'UUID (from search results)', suggesting this tool is used after obtaining a UUID from a search or list operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'doj_blog_entries' or other blog-related tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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