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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search is 'OCR full-text' and provides example queries, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by three specific, well-chosen examples that demonstrate different query patterns. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and provides usage examples well, but fails to address behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or operational constraints that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing concrete example queries that demonstrate how to construct search strings, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('historical FDA documents'), explicitly noting the document type ('press releases') and date range ('1913 to 2014'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on FDA historical documents, unlike other FDA tools that handle drugs, devices, or food events.

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 historical FDA press releases with OCR full-text search) and includes three specific example queries that demonstrate appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different FDA document types.

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