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 states the tool searches documents but does not describe how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting, format), error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search all presidential documents') and enumerates document types. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or structural fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, result format, pagination, error conditions, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively use the tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a search across document types. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how keyword interacts with doc_type) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 as searching presidential documents, listing specific document types (executive orders, memoranda, proclamations, other presidential actions). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('presidential documents'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as all listed siblings appear to be unrelated government data tools from different domains (e.g., BEA, BLS, CDC).

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. While sibling tools are unrelated, the description lacks any comparative context or usage scenarios, leaving the agent with no directional advice.

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