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 mentions 'significance testing' and 'shows which states score significantly higher or lower,' which hints at statistical analysis, but does not describe the output format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only or mutative. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second elaborates on the significance testing feature, and the third provides a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and there is no wasted verbiage. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key feature (significance testing) but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the comparison results look like, but it doesn't. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how to interpret its results fully.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide further examples of 'jurisdictions' codes). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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: 'Compare NAEP scores across states/jurisdictions with significance testing. Shows which states score significantly higher or lower than others.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('NAEP scores'), scope ('states/jurisdictions'), and key feature ('significance testing'). The example further clarifies the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'naep_scores' (which likely retrieves scores without comparison) and 'naep_compare_groups' (which compares demographic groups rather than states).

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 implies usage for comparing states/jurisdictions with statistical testing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'significance testing' as a key feature, which suggests it should be used when statistical comparisons are needed, but no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives is provided. The example helps illustrate a typical use case but lacks broader contextual guidance.

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