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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the scope of returned data, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though the core operation is clear.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, listing return data, and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description provides excellent context for the tool's purpose and usage workflow. It could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness, but for a straightforward lookup tool, it covers the essential context well.

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 already fully documents the single 'registry_id' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's origin ('from epa_facilities results') and providing an example format ('e.g. '110071141730''), which gives helpful context beyond the schema's basic description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed facility report from ECHO'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'epa_facilities' by explaining the workflow relationship. It provides concrete examples of what the report contains (permits, enforcement actions, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use epa_facilities first to find a RegistryID, then pass it here for the full report'), providing clear workflow guidance and naming the alternative tool. It effectively tells the agent the prerequisite step and the sequential relationship between tools.

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