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 the return format ('Returns PMID and linked project number'), which adds some context, but lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in three sentences: it states the purpose, lists search criteria, and specifies the return value. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, search inputs, and return format, but lacks details on output structure, pagination behavior, or error cases. Without an output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial, but the description is adequate for basic usage.

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 with descriptions (e.g., 'PubMed IDs: [33298401, 33105091]', 'Results per page (default 10)'). The description adds minimal value by listing search types ('Search by PubMed IDs (PMIDs), application IDs, or core project numbers'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, meeting 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search for publications') and resources ('linked to NIH-funded projects'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on NIH publications rather than other data types like BEA datasets or clinical trials. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('Returns PMID and linked project number'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by specifying search criteria ('Search by PubMed IDs (PMIDs), application IDs, or core project numbers'), which helps the agent understand its scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks, such as 'nih_search_projects' for project searches, leaving some guidance implicit.

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