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. It mentions search capabilities and coverage ('Covers all U.S. alt fuel infrastructure'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no structured safety hints.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second lists fuel types. It is front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy, though the fuel type list could be slightly condensed.

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 (search tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and basic filters but lacks output format details, error conditions, or usage examples. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results would improve completeness.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing fuel types with abbreviations (e.g., 'ELEC' (EV)) and implying filtering, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 for EV charging stations, hydrogen stations, biodiesel, CNG, and other alternative fuel stations. Covers all U.S. alt fuel infrastructure.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('stations'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, as all listed siblings are unrelated tools from different domains (e.g., BEA, BLS, CDC datasets).

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 by listing filter options ('Filter by state, zip, fuel type, radius') and providing fuel type details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools overlap in functionality, so no explicit comparison is needed, but guidance on prerequisites or constraints is absent.

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