search_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: exact matching, returning all matches, and providing a flag (has_multiple_committees) for disambiguation. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or error states, but the essential behavior is well-explained.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, followed by filter examples. No extraneous words.

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, the description explains the main output feature (returns all matches, flags multiple committees). It does not detail pagination, error handling, or full return structure, but for a search tool this is adequate and consistent with sibling tool descriptions.

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 the description partially compensates by listing filterable parameters and giving format examples (e.g., district: 'HD-42/SD-15', party: '(D)/(R)'). However, it omits the 'year' parameter and does not describe each parameter's full semantics or constraints.

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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Resolve candidates to committees (Org IDs)' and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it never fuzzy-matches and flags multiple committees. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'candidates to committees' are specific.

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 filterable attributes (name, district, office, party, cycle) and states the tool never fuzzy-matches, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like list_district_candidates or provide guidance on when to choose this over alternatives.

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