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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what data is returned, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond the 'top' and 'skip' parameters), or what format the results come in. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and provides just enough detail to understand what the tool does. Every word earns its place in this concise description.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly explains what data is retrieved but lacks information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The description works well with the comprehensive parameter schema but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added value by explaining how parameters interact.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant awards'), and provides detailed scope information about project-level grants to specific entities for specific purposes (debris removal, emergency work, permanent repair). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fema_disaster_declarations and fema_housing_assistance by focusing specifically on public assistance grants.

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 implies usage context by specifying what data is retrieved (grant awards for specific disaster types), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fema_query or other FEMA tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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