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 the data coverage and scope options but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and coverage, second clarifies availability levels, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and basic usage well but lacks details about behavioral aspects and output format. It's sufficient for basic use but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured metadata, leaving the agent with unanswered questions about the tool's operation.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the scope parameter's meaning ('federal' vs 'national') but doesn't provide additional context about the year or quarter parameters. This meets the baseline 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 specific action ('Get Use of Force data'), resource ('from the FBI'), and scope ('Covers incidents where law enforcement use of force resulted in death, serious injury, or firearm discharge'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on FBI use-of-force data, unlike other tools that cover different agencies or data types.

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 each option: 'Use scope='federal' for federal agencies, 'national' for all agencies participation data.' This directly addresses the tool's primary decision point and helps the agent choose between the two scopes without ambiguity.

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