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 sorting options ('title', '-title') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond parameters, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with three sentences: the core purpose, explanation of dockets, and sort options. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Search for regulatory dockets'). However, the sort information could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks a clear separation of key points.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior beyond parameters, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a search tool with rich parameters but no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent without sufficient context to interpret results effectively.

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 beyond the schema: it implies the tool searches across agencies and docket types but does not provide additional context like search syntax examples (beyond the schema's 'e.g.'), default behaviors, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 regulatory dockets' with a helpful explanation of what dockets are ('organizational folders containing related rules, comments, and documents'). It specifies the resource (regulatory dockets) and verb (search), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'regulations_search_comments' or 'regulations_search_documents' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions docket types ('rulemaking or non-rulemaking action') but does not specify when to choose this over other search tools (e.g., 'regulations_search_comments' for comments or 'regulations_search_documents' for documents). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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