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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool 'returns site details, inspection type/scope, open/close dates,' which gives some output context, but it does not cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second lists search parameters with code explanations, and the third describes the return values. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, and error handling. While it compensates somewhat by explaining inspection types, it does not fully address the gaps left by missing annotations and output schema, making it adequate but with room for improvement.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing searchable fields (state, establishment name, industry, type) and decoding inspection type codes, but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 workplace inspections'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on OSHA inspections rather than other datasets like BEA, BLS, or other DOL tools. It explicitly mentions what can be searched (state, establishment name, industry, type) and what is returned, making the purpose 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists search parameters, it does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'dol_osha_accidents' or 'dol_osha_violations') that might be relevant for related queries. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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