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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that results include current office, party, and contact info, and by specifying the scope of levels covered. It does not contradict annotations or mention default status/pagination, but those details are available in the schema.

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 composed of three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by filter options and return content. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content (current office, party, contact info) and the search scope. It covers the essential context for a search tool, while default status and pagination are appropriately left to the schema. Sibling tools exist but do not reduce completeness here.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the main filterable fields (name, state, party, level, chamber, office) but adds little beyond what the schema already documents, such as partial-match behavior or default status.

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 searches for politicians and elected officials across all levels of US government, with a specific verb and resource. It lists key filters and return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like politics_candidates or politics_by_state, so it falls short of a 5.

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 as a general search tool by mentioning broad coverage and filterable fields, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. This is implied usage rather than clear contextual guidance.

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