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. It mentions 'paged list' and 'exploring,' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. There's no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage context well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, permissions) and doesn't explain return values. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the tool returns, but it doesn't.

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, mentioning 'by data type' which aligns with the dataType parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Browse a paged list of foods from the USDA database.' It specifies the verb ('Browse'), resource ('foods'), and source ('USDA database'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools (fooddata_detail and fooddata_search), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 usage context: 'Useful for exploring available foods by data type without a specific search term.' This indicates when to use this tool (exploration without search term) and implicitly suggests alternatives (fooddata_search for searching with terms). It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, preventing a score of 5.

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