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 describes the output content ('shows every issue lobbied, specific bills mentioned, and lobbyist names'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 a usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error handling or data scope, but it's adequate for this simple lookup 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%, with the parameter 'filing_uuid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by reiterating that the UUID comes from 'lobbying_search results,' which is already implied in the schema description. It doesn't provide additional format, validation, or usage details beyond what the schema states, so it 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 action ('Get full detail') and resource ('a specific lobbying filing'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it shows 'every issue lobbied, specific bills mentioned, and lobbyist names.' It explicitly references the sibling tool 'lobbying_search' as the source for the required parameter, making its purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use the filing UUID from lobbying_search results.' It provides a clear prerequisite and distinguishes it from alternatives by implying this is for detailed information after a search, though it doesn't explicitly name other alternatives like 'lobbying_contributions' or 'lobbying_lobbyists.' The guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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