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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the read operation ('Get'), the source (Schedule A filings), and the granularity ('individual'), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether at least one of candidate_id/committee_id is expected, nor does it describe pagination, output type, or data freshness.

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, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only high-level purpose. It fails to clarify whether a candidate_id or committee_id is required in practice, how filters interact, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond implying candidate/committee context; it does not explain parameter combinations or constraints 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies a clear resource ('individual donor/contribution data from FEC Schedule A filings'), and states the core use case ('Find who is funding campaigns'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on candidates and spending.

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 gives clear context: it is for donor/contribution data for a candidate or committee and for finding campaign funders. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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