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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether this is a query or a download, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and enumerates chart types, but the list is long and unstructured, making it slightly cluttered. It front-loads the core function but could be more streamlined by grouping chart types or using bullet points (though not required). It avoids redundancy but isn't optimally organized.

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 of a statistical query tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return format (e.g., JSON structure, data units), error conditions, or example usage. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (chart_type and year). The description lists all possible chart types, which mirrors the enum in the schema without adding extra semantic meaning (e.g., explaining what 'manner' or 'experience' charts represent). It provides no additional context beyond what the schema already documents, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection (LESDC) statistics', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on FBI suicide data rather than other FBI tools (like arrest data or crime statistics) or unrelated datasets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the FBI context, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists chart types but doesn't explain which chart to choose for specific queries, mention prerequisites like authentication, or reference other tools for related data. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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