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 states the tool performs a 'search,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, result format, or whether it's a real-time or historical search. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and search scope, and the second lists form types with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (a search tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and form types but lacks details on behavioral aspects, result format, or error handling. It's adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent to fully leverage the tool without additional context.

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 (query, forms, start_date, end_date) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing form types and implying date filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. 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 performs a 'full-text search across all SEC EDGAR filings' with searchable elements (company name, keyword, topic) and lists specific form types. This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('SEC EDGAR filings'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'sec_company_search' or 'sec_company_financials' that might also search SEC data.

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 through the listed form types (e.g., '10-K (annual)'), suggesting when to filter by document type. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sec_company_search' for company lookups), prerequisites, or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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