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 filtering, sorting, and document types, but does not describe critical behaviors such as pagination limits (implied by 'pageSize' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a search tool with 10 parameters, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by filtering options and complementary context. Each subsequent sentence adds specific, useful information (document types, sort order) without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a search tool with many parameters, with zero wasted words.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose, filtering, and sorting well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, error handling, or response format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer these from the description, which does not provide sufficient context for reliable tool invocation.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying document types ('Proposed Rule', 'Rule', etc.) and sort options ('postedDate' asc/desc), which helps interpret the enums in the schema. However, it does not provide additional context beyond what the schema descriptions offer, such as examples for complex parameters or interactions between filters.

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 with specific verbs ('Search for federal regulatory documents') and resources ('proposed rules, final rules, and supporting materials'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fr_search_rules' by specifying it 'complements Federal Register data with rulemaking context', indicating a broader scope beyond just Federal Register entries.

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 mentioning it 'complements Federal Register data with rulemaking context', suggesting it should be used for deeper regulatory searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'regulations_search_dockets' or 'regulations_search_comments', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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