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 behavioral traits such as the types of violations returned (e.g., 'S=Serious') and the data included in results (e.g., 'standard cited, penalty amounts'), but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. This provides basic context but leaves gaps for a search tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in compact sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second lists violation types, the third specifies return data, and the fourth explains a key parameter link. There is no wasted text, 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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, violation types, return data, and a parameter link, but it lacks output format details, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool with rich parameters but no structured output, this leaves room for improvement in fully guiding the agent.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'violation types' and 'link to inspections via activity_nr', but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. 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 explicitly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('OSHA violations found during workplace inspections'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dol_osha_accidents' or 'dol_osha_inspections' by focusing specifically on violations rather than accidents or general inspections, providing clear differentiation.

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 by specifying what the tool searches for (violations) and linking to inspections via 'activity_nr', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dol_osha_inspections'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied rather than fully guided.

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