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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the official OpenFEC API as the source, which is useful, but omits any disclosure of read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The schema covers API key details, but the description adds little beyond the data source.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently enumerating the three modes. No wasted words.

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's complexity (5 parameters, one enum, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps. It does not mention the prerequisite for contributions mode (committeeId) or the API key fallback, though the schema handles those. It could better prepare an agent for edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well documented. The description restates the mode meanings but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('US federal campaign finance') and then clarifies the three distinct modes with concrete examples. It is immediately clear what the tool does, and no sibling tool overlaps in domain.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain-specific purpose—use it when seeking federal campaign finance data—but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives guidance. The mode descriptions offer some context but do not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over others.

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