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 discloses that it 'Returns title, abstract, full text URL, agencies, CFR references, and more', which gives useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies read-only).

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 followed by output details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter context, and output fields. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases, data freshness), but the simplicity of the tool makes the description adequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'document_number', with the schema providing a clear description and example. The description adds value by emphasizing that it's for a 'specific Federal Register document by document number', reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With 0 parameters beyond the documented one, a baseline of 4 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific Federal Register document'), specifying it's for a 'specific' document by 'document number'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fr_search_rules' or 'fr_agencies' by focusing on detailed retrieval for a single document rather than search or agency lists.

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 when you have a specific document number and need comprehensive details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'fr_search_rules' for finding documents). It provides some context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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