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 full burden. It describes a read operation ('List') but lacks behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens if no documents match. The description is minimal and does not provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists filtering options. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., document list format, metadata), error handling, and behavioral constraints. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'document code or date range', which aligns with parameters 'document_codes', 'date_from', and 'date_to', but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('documents filed in a patent application'), with specific examples of document types ('office actions, amendments, drawings, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on USPTO patent application documents, unlike the many BEA, CDC, or other agency tools in the list.

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 by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by document code or date range'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other USPTO tools like 'uspto_application_details' or 'uspto_search_applications'). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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