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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with zero 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 extremely concise and well-structured: one clear purpose statement followed by relevant examples. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides query examples, but lacks important contextual information about behavioral traits (rate limits, authentication needs) and doesn't describe the return format. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more completeness 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, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Keywords to search for'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by providing examples of query terms, but doesn't explain syntax, formatting, or advanced search capabilities. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 World Bank indicators by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('World Bank indicators'), and scope ('by keyword'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wb_compare' or 'wb_indicator', which appear to be related World Bank tools.

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 implied usage through examples ('GDP', 'health expenditure', etc.), suggesting this tool is for keyword-based searches of World Bank indicators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'wb_compare' or 'wb_indicator', and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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