gov.fec-candidate

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the tool returns FEC candidate IDs and links to another API, but omits critical details like authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are read-only. The agent has no insight into side effects or constraints.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, the list of filters is not structured for quick scanning (no grouping or formatting). Could be more concise while adding value.

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 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits pagination details (though defaults are in schema), required parameters (none, but not stated), and output structure. The agent lacks essential context for effective use.

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 0%. The tool description lists parameter names and some hints (e.g., 'q (name)', 'office (P/S/H)') but does not explain expected formats, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema. For example, 'candidateId' is not described, and 'hasRaised' lacks context. The description adds minimal meaning.

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 it searches US federal political candidates via OpenFEC and lists filter fields. The verb 'Search' and resource 'candidates' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gov.fec-committee, though the resource is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gov.fec-committee). It lists filters but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites. The agent receives no information about when to prefer this over similar FEC tools.

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