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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which implies it is non-destructive, and it explains the 'degree_of_inj' parameter values, adding useful context. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite having 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), leaving gaps 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 highly concise and well-structured, with three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, return data, parameter details, and linkage. Every sentence adds essential information without any wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to 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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the tool's purpose and key parameters adequately, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, errors) and does not describe the return format or structure, which is important for a tool with multiple data fields. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps in context.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the 'degree_of_inj' values (1=Fatality, etc.) and mentioning the link via 'summary_nr', but this information is largely redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('injury details from OSHA accident investigations'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dol_osha_accidents' by focusing on injury details rather than general accident information. It explicitly lists the types of data returned (demographics, nature of injury, etc.), making the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying that it returns injury details linked to accidents via 'summary_nr', implying it should be used when detailed injury information is needed for specific accidents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'dol_osha_accidents' for general accident data instead), which prevents a perfect score.

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