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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data retrieval ('Get') but does not describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure, pagination details). The MSN code list adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by a bulleted list of MSN codes. There is minimal waste, though the MSN list could be more integrated into the flow. Overall, it is efficient and structured.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. While it covers the purpose and some parameter context, it does not adequately compensate for the absence of structured metadata, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing MSN codes (e.g., 'ELETPUS: Electricity net generation'), which helps interpret the 'msn' parameter, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema describes for other parameters like 'frequency' or 'start'.

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: 'Get the monthly/annual U.S. energy overview — total production, consumption, imports, exports, and prices across all energy sources.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('U.S. energy overview'), and scope ('monthly/annual'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'eia_electricity' or 'eia_natural_gas' beyond the broader scope.

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 through the MSN code list and the phrase 'overview of major categories,' suggesting this tool is for aggregated energy data. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling tools for specific energy sources) or any prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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