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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description adds useful behavioral context: lookup can be by public-company ticker or partial committee name, and results include the candidates funded. It does not cover edge cases like both filters combined or default limit, but the read-only safety is already annotated.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core function, then give illustrative queries and routing to alternatives. No redundant filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, lookup modes, result content, and alternatives. It is slightly incomplete about whether at least one filter is required and how ticker and committee_name interact if both are supplied, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it sensibly.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover all three parameters (limit, ticker, committee_name), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ticker/committee_name lookup roles with examples but adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify parameter interaction.

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 names the exact resource: corporate and trade-association PACs linked to a public company or found by committee name, with the candidates they fund. It uses concrete example questions to make the lookup intent unmistakable and explicitly distinguishes itself from super_pacs and money_trail.

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?

It states when to use it: for corporate/trade-association PACs by ticker or committee name. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: for super PACs and mega-donors, use super_pacs and money_trail instead. This is explicit routing guidance.

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