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 discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), uses POST method, supports ODP syntax, and returns paginated results (implied by offset/limit). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and syntax, followed by essential usage notes. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does and how, the second clarifies parameter optionality and default behavior. It's efficiently structured with zero waste.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose, syntax, and basic usage, but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or performance limits. For a search tool with rich parameters, more context on output expectations would be beneficial.

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, providing detailed examples for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning that all parameters are optional and an empty search returns recent applications. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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 ('Search') and resource ('USPTO patent applications'), specifies the query syntax ('ODP query syntax (POST)'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on patent applications (unlike other USPTO tools like uspto_application_details or uspto_ptab_decisions). It's specific and action-oriented.

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 clear context for usage by explaining that all parameters are optional and an empty search returns recent applications, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search tools like uspto_application_details for specific IDs), missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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