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 the tool returns specific facility types (generators, transporters, TSD facilities) and mentions cross-referencing capabilities, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are important for a search tool with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in two more sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies return types, and the third suggests cross-referencing. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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 (search with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by specifying what is returned and suggesting cross-references. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, API constraints) or the structure of returned data, which would help compensate for the missing output schema.

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 the two parameters (state and limit). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the parameter semantics 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 verbs ('Search RCRA hazardous waste facilities by state') and identifies the resource ('hazardous waste facilities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for RCRA facilities via ECHO, unlike other EPA tools like epa_toxic_releases or epa_greenhouse_gas, which are mentioned as cross-references rather than alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for searching RCRA hazardous waste facilities by state. It suggests cross-referencing with other EPA tools for multi-program analysis, which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives among siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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