get_contributions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'itemized receipts + totals' and supports filtering, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key filters. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be structured slightly better to include the omitted parameters. For a short description, it is efficient.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how dedup works, what receipt_type values are valid, or how org_id and district relate to one another. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only explains 4 of 8 parameters (date_from, date_to, receipt_type, min_amount) and fails to mention org_id, district, dedup, and year, which are significant. The description adds some value but leaves half the parameters unexplained.

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 that the tool returns 'itemized receipts + totals for a committee or a whole district'. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contributions'), and the scope (committee/district) helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_committee (which likely focuses on committee info) and get_summary (which might return aggregated totals).

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 optional filters (date window, receipt_type, min_amount) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_committee or get_summary. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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