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 search and filtering, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 conveys the tool's purpose, filtering options, and temporal scope. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, error handling, or any context about the data source beyond the date range. For a search tool with multiple filters and no structured output, more guidance is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing the filter types (president, year, keyword) but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('presidential executive orders'), and distinguishes the tool's scope ('Covers all executive orders since 1994') from potential alternatives. It explicitly mentions filtering capabilities, making the purpose distinct and actionable.

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 by listing filter parameters (president, year, keyword), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving usage context partially 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.