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 discloses that the tool returns complete body, component, topic, date, and URL, which adds useful context about the return format. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, input context, and output fields adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases), but it's sufficient for this simple retrieval 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'uuid' parameter. The description adds marginal value by implying the UUID comes 'from search results,' but this is also hinted in the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong, but the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding 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 specific action ('Get the full text') and resource ('a specific DOJ press release by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'doj_press_releases' (which likely lists releases) and 'doj_blog_detail' (which handles blog entries). It precisely defines the tool's scope and output.

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 when you have a UUID from search results (as noted in the schema), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'doj_press_releases' or other detail tools. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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