fec_committee_disbursements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds context about the data scope (itemized disbursements) and hints at filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the added context is sufficient for a 4.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It combines the main purpose, a workflow section, an example, and common PAC IDs in a compact, high-value format. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results. It does so explicitly ('shows exactly which candidates and committees received money, how much, and when') and enriches context with workflow, example, and common IDs, making it complete for practical investigative use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the workflow around committee_id and recipient_name, providing example values (e.g., committee_id='C00004275', recipient_name='Crapo'), and suggesting cycle variations ('election year ± 1 cycle').

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 opens with 'Get itemized disbursements from a PAC or committee' – a clear verb+resource+scope. It explicitly states what data is returned (recipients, amounts, dates) and distinguishes itself as the 'KEY tool for conflict-of-interest investigations.'

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 provides a concrete WORKFLOW referencing fec_search_committees as a prerequisite step, instructs to 'Try multiple cycles', and includes an example call. This explicitly guides when and how to use this tool versus searching for committees first.

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