get_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returned data (candidate info, committees, money) but omits crucial details like read-only nature, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects. The information is minimal and insufficient.

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, which is concise. However, it contains inaccuracies and lacks detail, making it more under-specified than efficiently designed. It could be improved with clear, correct information.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or valid parameter values. The inaccuracy about the name parameter further reduces completeness.

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 adds some meaning by stating the parameter identifies a candidate, but it inaccurately suggests a 'name' parameter exists, creating ambiguity. The description partially adds value but also misleads.

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 it retrieves a candidate (by id or name) along with their committees and financial data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_committee' which focuses solely on committees. However, the verb is implicit and not explicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'by id or name' but the schema only has a 'candidate_id' parameter, which is misleading and implies an additional parameter that does not exist.

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