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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key operational constraints: the 50,000-record limit and the recommendation to use usda_ag_count for large queries. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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: two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, constraints, and usage recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by covering purpose, constraints, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details about response format, error handling, or authentication, which would be helpful for a query tool with many parameters. The high schema coverage partially compensates for this.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'Commodity: CORN, WHEAT, CATTLE, etc.'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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: 'Custom query to USDA NASS QuickStats — any combination of filters.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('USDA NASS QuickStats'), and scope ('any combination of filters'), distinguishing it from siblings like usda_crop_data or usda_livestock that target specific data subsets.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Max 50,000 records. Use usda_ag_count first for large queries.' It names a specific alternative tool (usda_ag_count) for preliminary checks and sets a clear constraint (record limit), helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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