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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself mainly restates the capability (itemized vs. aggregates) without adding behavioral details like pagination edge cases or the cycle default, which are already thoroughly documented in the schema. Since the schema carries the behavioral burden, the description adds minimal extra value, keeping it at a 3.

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 sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary function (Search itemized committee spending or get aggregates) and immediately follows with example use cases. Every word adds value, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 (17 params, output schema, full schema descriptions, and annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it searches, the modes, and the required parameter. It doesn't need to explain return values (output schema exists) or reiterate safety (annotations cover). The main gap is that it doesn't hint at the pagination quirks, but those are in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 is already explained in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level semantics; it only mentions that committee_id is required and lists the modes, which are already in the schema. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description contributes no additional parameter insight.

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's function: searching committee spending (Schedule B) with itemized or aggregate modes. It names the specific resource (Schedule B) and gives concrete question examples ('what is this committee spending money on?', 'who is receiving payments?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contributions or search_expenditures, making the agent's choice unambiguous.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to answer spending-related questions about a committee. It also notes the prerequisite ('All modes require a committee_id'). While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives, the provided example questions and resource scoping give clear usage context. The absence of exclusion criteria keeps this at a 4 rather than a 5.

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