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 full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at), or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 additional context in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second lists included data points, and the third provides economic significance. There is no wasted text.

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 (data retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what data is fetched and its significance but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints. This is adequate for a basic read tool but leaves gaps for full agent understanding.

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 fully documents all four parameters (limit, offset, sort_by, sort_order). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('national weekly Unemployment Insurance (UI) initial and continued claims'), specifying the exact data retrieved. It distinguishes from sibling 'dol_ui_claims_state' by explicitly indicating national-level data, not state-level.

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 context by noting it's a 'Key economic indicator — spikes indicate labor market stress,' suggesting when this data might be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other economic indicators in sibling tools) or any prerequisites, leaving guidance incomplete.

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