US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows'), but doesn't specify whether it's a query or report, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (though 'top' and 'skip' parameters hint at pagination). It lacks details on response format, error handling, or data freshness.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (verb, resource, data types). It could be slightly more structured by separating scope from filtering details, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a data retrieval tool. It covers the purpose and data scope but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) and output format. With 5 parameters fully described in the schema, it's adequate but could better address usage context and limitations.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that parameters filter by 'county/zip for a disaster', but doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'state' might be required with 'county') or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('FEMA Individual Housing Program assistance data'), specifying it's for homeowners and includes data types like approved assistance amounts, inspections, and damage. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on FEMA housing assistance rather than other datasets like BEA or BLS, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other FEMA tools like 'fema_disaster_declarations' or 'fema_public_assistance'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other FEMA tools (e.g., 'fema_disaster_declarations' for disaster info or 'fema_public_assistance' for other aid types). It mentions filtering by county/zip, but doesn't specify prerequisites like needing a disaster number or when to use state vs. county parameters.

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