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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful details: filters combine with AND, FEC and Bioguide ids are often null, rows may include people_id, and coverage includes state and federal candidates. It does not disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond schema fields, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Five dense sentences, each earning its place: endpoint identification, filter behavior, id-null semantics, cross-tool linking, and scope. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 7 parametersjer, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. It covers endpoint, filter semantics, id quirks, cross-links, and coverage. It stops short of describing the response shape or ordering, but the provided details are enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the key fields correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that filters combine with AND, that FEC and Bioguide ids are null for many rows, and that people_id enables a link to legislative voting records. This enriches the meaning of the parameters without re-listing them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the election-candidate directory (GET /v1/candidates): people running for office.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by stating it covers candidates, while get_candidate gets the full record and get_legislator reaches voting history via people_id.

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 routing context: pass a candidate id to get_candidate for the full recordcher, and pass people_id to get_legislator or get_legislator_scorecard. It implies this tool is for searching candidates, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like list_legislators.

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