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. It describes a search operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating the purpose and resource scope, second listing searchable fields. Every element serves a purpose with minimal waste. It could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning it's a search tool earlier, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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?

For a search tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what's being searched. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, result format, or error conditions that would help an agent use it correctly. The completeness is minimal but viable.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing searchable fields (trial type, outcome, patent owner, grant date range) which correspond to some parameter usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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: 'Search PTAB trial decisions' with specific resource types listed (institution decisions, final written decisions, other rulings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on PTAB decisions rather than other USPTO or government data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools in the same domain.

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 listing searchable fields (trial type, outcome, patent owner, grant date range), suggesting when this tool would be appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternative search methods or tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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