gov.fec-contributions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the large dataset size (>264M rows) but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. Key behavioral aspects are missing.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool and scale, second enumerates capabilities. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Despite covering main filters, the description omits pagination details (page, perPage) which are critical given the dataset size. No output schema exists, so description should provide more guidance on response contents. Overall adequate but incomplete for a param-heavy 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the main filter parameters (recipient, contributor fields, amounts, dates, cycle, isIndividual) and sort options. However, pagination parameters (page, perPage) are not explained.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as FEC Schedule A itemized contributions to federal political committees, with explicit filtering and sorting capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.fec-candidate or gov.fec-committee by focusing on contributions data.

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 lists filters and sort options, implying use for querying itemized contributions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gov.fec-totals, gov.fec-expenditures) or provide exclusion criteria.

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