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 full burden. It mentions the tool 'Shows staffing levels over time' which suggests read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines scope and resource, the second adds temporal dimension. No 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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is retrieved and at what levels, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, or sibling tool differentiation. For a read-only data tool, it meets basic requirements but leaves significant gaps in agent guidance.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the three aggregation levels (national, state, agency) which helps contextualize the 'state' and 'ori' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Get law enforcement employee data (sworn officers, civilian employees) at national, state, or agency level. Shows staffing levels over time.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('law enforcement employee data'), and scope ('national, state, or agency level'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fbi_agencies' or 'fbi_arrest_data' beyond the data type.

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 mentioning the three aggregation levels (national, state, agency) and time-series capability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'fbi_agencies' or 'fbi_crime_summarized'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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