gov.fec-totals

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the electionFull behavior and scope, but omits details on pagination, data freshness, authentication, and return structure. For a tool with 11 parameters, more behavioral context is needed.

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 purpose, examples, filters, and special behavior. No fluff, efficient for the agent.

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?

Given no output schema and many parameters, the description provides core functionality and important special cases (electionFull). It could be improved by noting pagination defaults and expected fields in the response, but is largely complete for a data retrieval 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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It mentions most parameters (scope, IDs, cycle, office, party, state, district, electionFull) and explains how they work. Missing only page and perPage, which are common pagination defaults.

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 the tool provides FEC aggregate financial totals for candidates or committees, with specific examples like receipts and disbursements. It distinguishes itself from sibling FEC tools (e.g., contributions, expenditures) by focusing on totals rather than individual transactions.

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 mentions filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the tool is for aggregated totals, but lacks direct guidance like 'use for summary data, not detailed transactions.'

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