US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it notes the dataset size (1.3M+ reports), privacy considerations ('MSK' masked values), and count fields available. It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but covers essential context for a search tool.

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: it starts with the core purpose, details report content, notes privacy, and provides practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete for a search tool: it explains the dataset, content, privacy notes, and usage examples. It could mention output format or pagination, but the limit parameter is covered in the schema, and the count fields hint at aggregation options.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example search queries that illustrate parameter usage beyond the schema's generic examples, such as specific field names (animal.species, original_receive_date) and syntax for exact phrases and date ranges, enhancing understanding of the 'search' parameter.

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 searches animal/veterinary adverse event reports (1.3M+ reports) with specific examples of content (animal info, drugs, reactions, outcomes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on animal drug side effects, unlike other FDA tools for human drugs, devices, or food.

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 (searching animal adverse event reports) and includes example searches that illustrate practical applications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar data (e.g., other FDA event tools), though the sibling list shows distinct FDA tools.

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