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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the continuity data returns in, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with clarifying details about what 'continuity' means in this context.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving relationship data), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what data is retrieved but not the format, structure, or limitations of the returned continuity chain data, which would be important for an agent to use this tool 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?

The description doesn't explicitly discuss parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'application_number' is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying what type of data will be retrieved for that application number (continuity chain), which provides context beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 ('Get continuity data') and resources ('patent application'), and explicitly distinguishes its scope from potential sibling tools by specifying it shows 'parent applications (continuations, divisionals, CIPs) and child applications' - making it distinct from other USPTO tools like uspto_application_details or uspto_search_applications.

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 specifying what data is retrieved (continuity chain for patent applications), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uspto_application_details or uspto_search_applications, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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