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 describes a search operation but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond schema defaults), error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key search fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the description earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's scope.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and searchable fields but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on response format. For a search tool with moderate complexity, it should provide more guidance on how to interpret results or handle common use cases.

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 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing searchable fields (applicant name, decision type, technology center, date range), which loosely maps to parameters like 'q' and 'range_filters', but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('USPTO petition decisions'), including examples of decision types (petitions for extension of time, revival, suspension). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on USPTO petition decisions, which is a distinct domain from other tools like census or clinical trials searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions searchable fields (applicant name, decision type, etc.), it does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. There is no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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