summary

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

The description implies read-only aggregation, but with no annotations to confirm, it fails to disclose safety guarantees, required permissions, or whether the tool is destructive. It also does not mention pagination, rate limits, or data freshness.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise but lacks necessary details, which prevents a perfect score.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what aggregated totals are returned (e.g., total contributions, total expenditures). It does not, nor does it address the meaning of 'cycle' or how results are structured.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds key meaning by listing possible scope_type values (committee, candidate, cycle). However, it does not clarify the format of scope_id (e.g., FEC ID, candidate ID, cycle year) or provide examples, leaving ambiguity.

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 the tool aggregates totals for committee, candidate, or cycle resources. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not distinguish from siblings like top_donors or get_candidate which may also provide summary-like data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_committee, get_candidate, or search_contributions. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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