fec_candidate_financials

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is a safe read. The description adds minimal behavioral context—only listing the returned fields—but does not disclose potential pitfalls like error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid IDs. This is adequate for a simple read with annotations.

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 directly states the function and required input. Every word contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and what prerequisite is needed. The schema provides parameter details, and the annotation ensures safety, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling users how to obtain a candidate_id (via fec_search_candidates), which is not in the schema. The cycle parameter is already well-described with an example, so the description does not need to add more.

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's purpose: 'Get financial summary for a candidate' with specific metrics (total raised, spent, cash on hand, debt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fec_committee_financials, which focus on committees, and from fec_search_candidates, which is for finding candidates.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Requires a candidate_id' and directs users to fec_search_candidates to obtain it. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., not for committees).

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