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 it's a search tool, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'page_size' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., partial matches, exact matches). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 lobbying firms and organizations registered to lobby Congress'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of registrants with details), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'page_size') well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify search semantics like case-sensitivity or wildcards for 'name'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('lobbying firms and organizations registered to lobby Congress'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lobbying_contributions' or 'lobbying_lobbyists' by focusing on registrants rather than contributions or individual lobbyists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'lobbying_search' (a sibling tool), which might handle broader searches.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'lobbying_search', 'lobbying_detail'), there's no indication of when this specific registrant search is preferred, what its limitations are, or any prerequisites for use. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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