Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: pagination ('returns paginated results'), the specific data returned (trade counts, last trade date, net direction), and the 12-month trailing period. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second describes available filters and outputs. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no required parameters, an output schema (so return values are documented), and a clear description covering filters and output fields, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the output fields (trade counts, last trade date, net direction) which clarify the purpose of sortBy options like 'last_trade' and 'total_trades'. It also mentions the trailing 12-month period, providing context beyond the schema.

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: 'List and search congressional politicians who have STOCK Act trading disclosures.' It specifies available filters (party, state, name) and what the results contain (pagination, trade counts, last trade date, net direction). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_politician_detail or get_politician_transactions.

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 for listing/searching politicians with trading disclosures, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_politician_detail (for a single politician) or get_politician_transactions (for trades). It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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