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 describes the search functionality and gives examples, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. The description adds some context (e.g., count fields, example queries) but lacks details on system behavior beyond basic usage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, followed by examples and additional details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (search tool with query syntax), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage examples, and parameter hints, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or advanced behavioral context. It is adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('search' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description adds value by providing example search queries and mentioning count fields, which helps interpret the 'search' parameter's semantics beyond the schema's technical description. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of output schema by explaining return values in detail.

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: 'Search FDA food adverse event reports (CAERS database)' with specific examples of what it searches ('Reports of illnesses, allergic reactions, and injuries from foods and dietary supplements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on FDA food adverse events, unlike other FDA tools (e.g., fda_animal_events, fda_drug_events) or unrelated datasets.

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 usage with example searches (e.g., supplement events, hospitalization events) and mentions count fields, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. It implies usage for searching adverse event reports, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other FDA tools.

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