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 tool is for 'searching' and that results are 'for use with other NOAA tools,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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: 'Search NOAA location IDs (states, cities, countries) for use with other NOAA tools.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the search returns, which is a gap. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear omissions.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (category, dataset_id, limit) with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 NOAA location IDs (states, cities, countries) for use with other NOAA tools.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('NOAA location IDs'), and scope (states, cities, countries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'noaa_climate_data' or 'noaa_stations' beyond mentioning 'for use with other NOAA tools,' which is a minor gap.

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 context by stating 'for use with other NOAA tools,' suggesting this tool is a precursor to fetch location IDs needed for other operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'noaa_stations' or 'noaa_datasets.' The guidance is present but limited to a general dependency hint.

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