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 the tool's scope ('Search WHD enforcement cases'), data coverage ('since FY2005'), and types of cases handled, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 four sentences: the core function, scope details, laws enforced, and data availability. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 (search with 7 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides good context on what the tool searches and its domain. However, it doesn't explain the return format or result structure, which is a gap since there's no output schema. It compensates partially with scope and data details, but completeness is slightly reduced due to missing output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'state' interacts with 'trade_nm' or default behaviors). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('WHD enforcement cases'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact domain (Wage and Hour Division enforcement). It elaborates on the scope ('wage theft investigations') and laws enforced, making it highly specific and differentiated from other tools like 'dol_osha_inspections' or 'dol_ui_claims_state'.

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 stating what the tool covers ('wage theft investigations') and the data availability ('since FY2005'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the domain description alone.

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