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 like the data source ('via ECHO') and media types with specific systems ('ICIS-Air', 'ICIS-NPDES'), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 first sentence stating the core purpose and subsequent sentences adding essential details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and media types, making it efficient and well-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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope, and media types, but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling. With no output schema, the agent might need more guidance on what to expect from results, though the description's focus on compliance and violations provides some context.

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 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'media_type' with examples ('air' for CAA, 'water' for CWA) and context, which clarifies beyond the schema's technical details. However, it does not provide additional semantics for other parameters like 'state' or 'major_only', relying on the schema.

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 ('Search EPA-regulated facilities') and resources ('facilities for environmental compliance and violations via ECHO'), including scope details like 'air or water permit violations, inspections, and enforcement actions'. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., epa_air_quality, epa_facility_detail) by focusing on facility-level compliance searches rather than air quality data or detailed facility profiles.

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 specifying 'media types: air or water', which helps differentiate between air and water facility searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., epa_facility_detail for detailed info, epa_enforcement for enforcement data) or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the description's focus on compliance and violations.

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