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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return content (candidate IDs), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss result volume, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the downstream-use note follows, each earning 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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and the schema fully documenting all six parameters, the description covers what is needed: what it searches and what it returns. Only minor omissions remain, such as result limits and empty-result behavior, which the schema's limit description partially handles.

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 every parameter including cycle and limit is documented in the schema itself. The description's list of search dimensions (name, state, office, party) maps onto existing parameters but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Search), resource (federal candidates), scope (President, House, Senate), and searchable dimensions, plus the data source (FEC). This clearly separates it from siblings like fec_candidate_details or fec_candidate_financials, which operate on an already-identified candidate.

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 second sentence establishes the workflow role: this tool yields the candidate IDs that the other FEC tools consume, which tells an agent to start here when it lacks an ID. It does not name specific alternative siblings or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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