get_official_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output includes committees and full contact (where available), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid, leaving gaps.

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 and data sources with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool returns (committees + full contact) and where the id comes from. It lacks details on error handling but is adequate for an AI agent to understand usage.

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?

The schema has one parameter (official_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the id comes from sibling tools, clarifying its provenance and purpose. This compensates well but could be more precise about expected format.

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 provides 'Enriched detail for one official (committees + full contact where available)', specifying the verb (get details) and resource (one official). It distinguishes from siblings like list_districts and lookup_officials by focusing on a single official's detailed info.

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 hints at usage context by stating the id is 'returned from the other tools', implying a sequence (first use lookup_officials, then this tool). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or provide alternative tools, but the sibling list helps differentiate.

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