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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: the row-per-cycle behavior in single mode, the ranking/screening capability in by_entity_type, and a hint about pagination ('you can have more cycles than one page holds'). This goes beyond the annotations to clarify operational traits without contradicting them.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then unpack the two modes. It conveys a lot of information without redundancy, though the second sentence is long and packs many enumerated values. It is structured and efficient for the complexity involved.

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 high parameter count, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It covers mode selection, param applicability, pagination hints, and even cross-references another tool for IDs. Minor gaps like error conditions or rate limits are covered by the output schema and annotations, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, providing a baseline of 3, but the description substantially enhances parameter understanding. It explains mode interplay (which params apply to which mode), the meaning of sort prefixes and cycle semantics, and directs users to another tool for committee IDs. This is far beyond schema descriptions, making parameter usage intuitive even for a 15-parameter interface.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-aggregated committee financial totals'), enumerating the exact data points (receipts, disbursements, cash on hand, debts, itemized/unitemized breakdown). It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes and implies the tool's niche versus schedule-based pagination, differentiating it from sibling search tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('Use mode single... Use mode by_entity_type...') and what each mode accomplishes. It also contrasts with an alternative ('without paginating Schedule A') but does not explicitly state when this tool should NOT be used in favor of a sibling. The mode-specific instructions are clear and actionable.

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