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. The description states it's a search tool but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what format results return (no output schema exists), pagination behavior (though 'page_size' parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The legal context sentence adds some value but doesn't cover operational behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose. The second sentence provides useful legal context. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

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 (search tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (format, fields), how results are structured, pagination details, or error handling. The legal context is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing operational information needed for effective tool use.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'lobbyists' and 'politicians' which align with 'lobbyist_name' and implied recipient, but doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose: 'Search campaign contributions made by lobbyists — shows which lobbyists donated to which politicians.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('campaign contributions'), and scope ('by lobbyists'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lobbying_search' or 'lobbying_detail', which appear to be related but have different functions.

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 mentions the legal requirement ('Required under the LDA to disclose political contributions by registered lobbyists'), but this is contextual background rather than usage guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'lobbying_search'.

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