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 the tool retrieves data (a read operation) and specifies the time frame (past 30 days) and event criteria (M4.5+ or felt/damaging). However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). The description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and adds context in the second. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's function and scope, and the second explains its utility. It's appropriately sized with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, the time frame, and event criteria. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data format, limitations). For a simple read tool, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given because the schema fully covers the parameters (none), and the description doesn't need to compensate. It correctly avoids redundant information.

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: 'Get significant earthquakes from the past 30 days (typically M4.5+ or felt/damaging events).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('significant earthquakes'), and temporal scope ('past 30 days'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'usgs_earthquakes' by focusing on notable events. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'usgs_earthquake_count' or 'usgs_daily_water_data', which slightly limits differentiation.

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: 'Quick way to see the latest notable seismic activity worldwide' suggests it's for recent, high-impact events. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'usgs_earthquakes' (which may offer broader filtering) or 'usgs_earthquake_count' (which might provide counts). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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