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 mentions what the tool returns but does not describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained). For a search 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 sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields, and the second provides usage guidance with a named alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, search functionality) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides some usage guidance, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and interactions with sibling tools beyond one mention. This is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and enums. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or default behaviors. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('OSHA accident and fatality investigations'), and it lists the return fields (event descriptions, dates, locations, industry codes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond mentioning one specific alternative (dol_osha_accident_injuries), leaving other potential overlaps unaddressed.

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 (for searching accident investigations) and explicitly names an alternative tool (dol_osha_accident_injuries) for getting injury details, which is helpful guidance. However, it does not mention other sibling tools like dol_osha_inspections or dol_osha_violations, nor does it specify when not to use this tool, which limits the score.

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