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 full burden. It mentions the return values (innerdiff1, innerdiff2, gap between them) which helps, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like data freshness, potential limitations, error conditions, or what happens with invalid jurisdictions. For a statistical comparison tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing an example, and explaining return values. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor improvement would be slightly more structured formatting.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, statistical comparison) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't provide enough context about data sources, interpretation of results, or error handling that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'demographic groups' which relates to the 'variable' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or constraints not already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('compare') and resource ('achievement gaps between demographic groups across states'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on cross-jurisdiction gap comparisons. The example question further clarifies the exact use case.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the example implies comparison scenarios, there's no mention of sibling tools (like naep_compare_states or naep_compare_groups) or clear boundaries for when this specific gap comparison tool is appropriate.

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