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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: values are always ranges (minimum-maximum), a missing year means no electronic filing rather than zero net worth, and only electronically filed reports are read. This helps set expectations for output and missing data.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the purpose, second clarifies the output format, third discloses data limitations and search prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes unique information.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining that each year is a band (min-max) and that missing years have a specific interpretation. It also covers the input prerequisite and data-source limitation, making it complete for a two-parameter read-only tool.

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%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds extra value by pointing to SearchCongressMembers for memberName lookup and by explaining that the tool returns ranges, which informs how to interpret results. However, it doesn't add much more beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Get a congress member's net worth history from their annual financial disclosures.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like GetMemberTrades by focusing on net worth rather than trades, and adds unique nuances about range-based values.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: for net worth history from financial disclosures. It also gives a key prerequisite by directing users to SearchCongressMembers for member names, and explains a data-coverage limitation (only electronic filings). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, such as GetMemberTrades.

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