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 mentions that TRI tracks chemical releases from industrial facilities, implying read-only data retrieval, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. The description adds useful context about data scope but lacks operational details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: explaining TRI, listing common sectors, and providing cross-references. There's no wasted text, 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 complexity (data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, data context, and sibling tool relationships. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what fields are returned) and behavioral aspects like pagination or errors, which would be helpful for a tool with no 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 already documents all parameters (state, county, rows) with descriptions and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how county filtering interacts with state or typical use cases for rows. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for TRI data by state. It also explains what TRI is (chemical releases from industrial facilities under EPCRA Section 313), which adds context beyond just the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lists common sectors for context and explicitly cross-references two sibling tools (epa_facilities for compliance status and epa_greenhouse_gas for emissions), giving clear alternatives for related but different data needs.

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