get_politician_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (total trades, buy/sell ratio, top holdings, activity breakdown) and implies a read-only aggregation behavior. While it does not mention rate limits, errors, or data freshness, it provides solid transparency about what information the tool returns.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get comprehensive statistics') and immediately lists the included data categories. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return components (total trades, buy/sell ratio, top holdings, activity breakdown). It does not specify the exact response structure or edge-case behavior, but for a stats tool with only two parameters, this is adequately complete for an agent to understand the expected result.

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% because both parameters ('politician' and 'days') have descriptive text and 'days' includes an enum. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply confirms the politician focus. As a result, the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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' and resource 'comprehensive statistics for a specific politician', explicitly listing the contained metrics (total trades, buy/sell ratio, top holdings, trading activity breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_politician_trades (which likely returns raw trades) and asset-focused tools.

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 usage for high-level aggregate statistics on a single politician, which indirectly differentiates it from raw trade lists or asset-level metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and siblings.

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