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. It mentions the dataset size (3,200+ records) and content characteristics, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 three sentences that each add value: dataset scope, comparison to press releases, and content coverage. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be made by explicitly stating it's a search/pagination tool rather than just 'Search DOJ...blog entries'.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list of entries? full text? metadata?), how results are structured, or any limitations beyond dataset size. The content context is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand the full tool behavior.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 searches DOJ Office of Public Affairs blog entries, specifying the resource (blog entries) and scope (3,200+ records). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'doj_press_releases' by noting blog entries provide more context/analysis than press releases, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives for when to use each.

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 stating 'Blog entries often provide more context and analysis than press releases' and mentioning coverage areas (policy discussions, division activities, enforcement context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'doj_press_releases' or 'doj_blog_detail', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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