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 indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is neutral and doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 ('Get details for a specific PTAB trial proceeding') and includes essential context (the parameter example). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response structure, error cases), leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that fetches details.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the parameter's purpose ('by trial number') and providing an example format ('IPR2025-01319'), which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's technical definition. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('PTAB trial proceeding'), and specifies the identifier ('by trial number') with an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'uspto_ptab_proceedings' (likely a list) and 'uspto_ptab_decisions' (different resource).

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 when you have a specific trial number, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'uspto_ptab_proceedings' for listing proceedings). It provides context (specific trial) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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