search_contributions

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 that the tool returns 'matching contributions (each with source_url + as_of) plus the full-match count and total.' However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read-only search, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: the first lists search criteria, the second describes return fields. No redundant or irrelevant content. It is concise, though the complexity of 10 parameters might warrant slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points).

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return format but omits details like pagination (limit parameter exists but no explanation), combination logic of filters, or data types. It is minimally complete for a search tool.

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%. The description lists the parameter categories (donor, recipient, etc.) in the first sentence, which adds context beyond the schema's plain titles, but does not explain formats or constraints (e.g., date format, state codes). With 10 parameters, more detail is needed for 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 the verb 'search' and specifies the resource 'campaign contributions' with multiple searchable criteria (donor, recipient, candidate, amount, date, state, cycle). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_candidate or donor_history, which retrieve individual entities.

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 when to use this tool—when searching for contributions by various filters—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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