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 states the tool is for searching, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page_size' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., result format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the search target and criteria, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like pagination, result format, or error handling, which are critical for a search tool. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool use is insufficient, especially for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 ('name', 'firm', 'page_size') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by name or firm' and 'specific people', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, such as search logic (e.g., partial vs. exact matching) or default behaviors.

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 individual lobbyists by name or firm' and 'Find specific people who lobby Congress and which firms they work for.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('individual lobbyists'), and scope ('by name or firm'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lobbying_search' or 'lobbying_registrants', which may have overlapping 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 searching by name or firm, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'lobbying_search' (which might have broader search capabilities) or 'lobbying_registrants' (which might focus on firms rather than individuals).

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