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 mentions 'search' functionality but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only (likely, but not stated), pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific searchable fields. Every word earns its place—no redundant information, no fluff. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the response format, pagination strategy beyond parameter names, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. For a search tool that likely returns structured data, the absence of output schema means the description should at least hint at return structure, which it doesn't. The description alone leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by listing searchable fields (trial number, patent owner, etc.) that correspond to some parameter usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples beyond what's in schema descriptions, or explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'q', 'filters', and 'range_filters' interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) trial proceedings' with specific examples of proceeding types (IPR, PGR, CBM, derivation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are unrelated BEA, BLS, etc. datasets) by focusing on USPTO PTAB proceedings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other USPTO tools like 'uspto_ptab_decisions' or 'uspto_ptab_proceeding_details', which might handle similar data differently.

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 number, patent owner, etc.) and date range capability, suggesting when this tool would be appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives like 'uspto_ptab_proceeding_details' (which might retrieve specific proceedings) or 'uspto_search_applications' (which searches patents rather than proceedings). No exclusion criteria 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.