search_expenditures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns expenditures with provenance plus count and total, which adds behavioral context beyond a basic search. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 concise sentences front-loading the key filters and output. Every phrase is informative, and there is no redundancy.

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 8 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers tool purpose, filters, and return values. It could mention pagination behavior for the limit parameter, but overall it is sufficient.

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% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists the filter parameters in plain language but omits format details (e.g., date format, state codes) and constraints, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'expenditures', listing multiple filter dimensions (committee, payee, purpose, date range, state, cycle) and output details (expenditures with provenance, count, total). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contributions.

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 usage by enumerating filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_contributions, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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