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. It mentions searching across publications but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page_size' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another listing collections. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor redundancy with the schema's collection list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 4 parameters. It covers the purpose and collections but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, error handling, or usage context. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by listing collections (e.g., 'BILLS', 'PLAW') which clarifies the 'collection' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches across government publications, listing specific document types like bills, laws, and reports. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on govinfo content, unlike other tools for BEA, BLS, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'congress_search_bills' or 'fr_search_rules' that might overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists collections but doesn't indicate if this is the primary search tool for govinfo or when to choose it over sibling tools like 'congress_search_bills' for bills or 'fr_search_rules' for Federal Register content. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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