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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance by explicitly labeling figures as 'estimated disclosed volume' and framing the return metric as 'the closest the public data gets to' performance attribution, which helps an agent trust and interpret results.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned metrics and accepted input forms. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every clause adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the input flexibility, metric set, and interpretive caveat sufficiently. It does not describe the exact return format, but the listed metrics largely compensate given the absence of 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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the member parameter's accepted forms and gives examples, but those examples and semantics mostly duplicate what the schema already states for both 'member' and 'days'.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: 'Detail view for a single member of Congress (or executive-branch filer)' with a concrete list of computed metrics. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like politician_recent_trades or politician_top_movers because it focuses on an individual member's aggregate profile rather than recent trades or movers.

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 implies the tool should be used when a single-member aggregate profile is needed, and it gives input flexibility ('full name', 'last name', or 'canonical filer id'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives such as politician_recent_trades or politician_top_movers.

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