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 mentions data retrieval ('Get', 'Compare') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a data query tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context on data comparison. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly efficient 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 tool's complexity (data retrieval with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and data scope but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, error cases, or data sources. While concise, it does not fully compensate for the missing structured information.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'sort_by' beyond 'rptdate' or clarification on 'limit' behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Compare') and resources ('state-level weekly Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims', 'initial claims, continued claims, and insured unemployment rate across states'). It distinguishes itself from its sibling 'dol_ui_claims_national' by focusing on state-level data rather than national aggregates.

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 mentioning what data is available ('across states'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dol_ui_claims_national' or other data tools. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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