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 discloses that results can be sorted by date and mentions a default sort order ('newest first'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by pageSize/pageNumber parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, list filtering options, and specify sorting behavior with clear examples. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent 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 complexity (8 parameters, search functionality) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, filtering, and sorting, but doesn't address output format, pagination details, or error cases. For a search tool with no structured output information, more context on what results look like would be beneficial, though the concise coverage of key aspects keeps it adequate.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filter types ('keyword, agency, docket, or date') and sort options, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints not already in the schema descriptions. This meets 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: 'Search for public comments on federal regulations' with specific filtering capabilities (keyword, agency, docket, date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on public comments rather than other regulatory or data types, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar searches.

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 it 'shows what the public said about proposed rules,' which suggests it's for analyzing public feedback. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., regulations_search_dockets or regulations_search_documents from the sibling list), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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