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 that it 'Returns large emitters' and includes specific data fields (CO2-equivalent emissions, facility name, sector, location), which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on data scope and cross-references. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently conveys necessary information in four concise sentences.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it explains what data is returned, the source program, key fields, and suggests cross-references. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of results, pagination), but the provided information covers the essentials for a data retrieval tool.

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 documents both parameters ('state' and 'rows') with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Greenhouse Gas emissions data by state'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on EPA's GHGRP data. It explicitly mentions the data source (EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program) and the type of entities covered (large emitters), which differentiates it from other environmental or economic data tools in the sibling list.

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 it returns 'large emitters reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program' and suggests cross-referencing with EIA energy data and BLS CPI energy component, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other EPA tools like epa_air_quality or epa_toxic_releases). It provides some guidance through data source and cross-references but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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