US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns sorted results (descending by amount) and implies it's a read-only query (no destructive hints). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens when no results match. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in three sentences: purpose statement, usage context, and differentiation from alternatives. Every sentence adds critical information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job covering purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. Since there's no output schema, some guidance on return values would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for basic use.

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 minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'state or specialty' as filtering examples and implying the tool focuses on 'biggest' payments. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context, 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the HIGHEST pharma payments to doctors — sorted by amount descending.' It specifies the resource (pharma payments to doctors), the verb (find), and the key characteristic (highest, sorted descending). This clearly distinguishes it from generic search tools like 'open_payments_search' in the sibling list.

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 for when to use this tool: 'Use this to find the biggest consulting fees, royalties, and speaking fees in a state or specialty.' It also contrasts with an alternative: 'Supports sorting by payment amount — unlike the basic search which returns results in default order.' However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., 'open_payments_search') or specify when not to use it, preventing a perfect score.

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