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 tool searches PMA decisions and includes example queries, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling. The example searches add some context but fall short of fully describing operational behavior.

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, followed by explanatory context and practical examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, provides usage examples, and clarifies parameters. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or rate limits, which would be beneficial for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example queries (e.g., 'decision_code:APPR') and mentioning count fields, which clarifies how to use the 'search' parameter effectively beyond the schema's generic description. This enhances understanding of parameter usage.

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 for Premarket Approval (PMA) decisions for Class III medical devices, specifying the resource (PMA decisions) and scope (Class III devices). It distinguishes itself from sibling FDA tools like fda_device_510k or fda_device_classification by focusing on PMA decisions rather than other device-related data.

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 by explaining that PMA is required for high-risk devices and includes example searches, which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other FDA device tools) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, such as API limits or authentication needs.

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