get_politician_trades

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists filter categories. It does not mention default timeframes (90 days), how filters combine (AND/OR), response format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 optional parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no unnecessary words and is easily parsed. However, it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness, such as mentioning defaults or that all filters are optional.

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 the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain default behavior, how multiple filters combine, what the response includes, or any rate limits. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is lacking.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it merely summarizes filter cats, such as 'issuer' for symbol and 'time period' for days. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional detail.

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's function: retrieving politician trades. It specifies the resource ('politician trades') and lists the available filters (issuer, politician, party, transaction type, time period), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on stats or momentum.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, preferred use cases, or situational context. It only implies a general purpose, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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