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 discloses the data source ('RES system') and gives example queries, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a search tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific search fields and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (search with two parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and examples, but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints, which would be helpful since no annotations are provided.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'search' parameter can be used for 'name, manufacturer, or reason for recall', but does not provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema's examples cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Search FDA medical device recall reports') and resources ('RES system', 'recalled devices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fda_drug_recalls' and 'fda_food_recalls' by specifying the domain of 'medical device' recalls, providing clear differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool by listing searchable fields ('by name, manufacturer, or reason for recall') and offering example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related queries (e.g., other FDA recall types), missing full explicit guidance.

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