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 that this is a search/query tool (implying read-only behavior) and provides examples of search syntax, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: a clear purpose statement, key search dimensions, and three specific examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to scan and understand.

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), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameter examples. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what fields are returned) and behavioral aspects like rate limits, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete search examples (e.g., 'classification:"Class I"') that illustrate how to use the 'search' parameter effectively, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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', 'Find') and resources ('FDA drug recall enforcement reports', 'recalled drugs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on drug recalls, unlike other FDA tools like fda_device_recalls or fda_food_recalls.

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 example search scenarios (classification, company, reason). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related queries (e.g., fda_device_recalls for device recalls).

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