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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating the exact returned data: receipts, disbursements, cash on hand, and independent expenditures by cycle. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences cover what the tool returns, the required identifier, and the prerequisite search step. Every sentence adds value and the most important information comes first.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and a clear return list, the description is complete. The agent knows what to pass, how to get the ID, and what results to expect, even without an output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds the 'by cycle' context and the workflow hint for committee_id, but most parameter meaning already lives in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly names the resource (committee/PAC campaign-finance totals), the lookup key (FEC committee ID), and the action (get totals). It differentiates from siblings like search_committees by stating the ID must be found there first, and from candidate_financials by specifying committee/PAC rather than 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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use search_committees first to find the committee ID.' This tells the agent the correct workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus candidate_financials, but the resource distinction is strong enough for this simple case.

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