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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the data scope (events, deadlines, elections) and filtering capability, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or potential quirks. With annotations covering the core safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the resource, the second lists specific use cases. Information is front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool with multiple modes.

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 has 12 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It names the three main result types (events, filing deadlines, election dates) and the key filtering dimensions (date range, category). It does not explicitly walk through each mode, but the schema covers those details. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination defaults, but these are in the schema (per_page, page).

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all 12 parameters, each with descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (it mentions date ranges and category, but these are explicitly documented in the schema). Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 clear verb-resource combination: 'Look up FEC calendar events, filing deadlines, and election dates.' It lists three distinct resource types and explicitly names the use cases (finding filing windows, locating election dates, and scoping events by date/category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfec_lookup_elections, which is narrower in scope.

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 scenarios where the tool is appropriate ('Use to find upcoming filing windows for a committee, locate when a federal election occurred, or scope FEC events by date range and category'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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