fec_committee_financials

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful context about required input and committee types, but it does not disclose return volume, pagination, or default cycle behavior. With annotations doing the safety lifting, a 3 is warranted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and all words earn their place. It immediately states what the tool returns and then the essential prerequisite.

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 only two parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is almost sufficient. It identifies the core purpose and prerequisite, but lacks an explicit note about what the returned 'financial totals' comprise (e.g., receipts, disbursements, cash on hand). A brief mention of output fields would make it fully 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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond restating the requirement for committee_id. The reference to fec_search_committees is a helpful semantic addition, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('financial totals for a committee') with the scope of committee types (PAC, campaign, party). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by stating the requirement for a committee_id and referencing fec_search_committees.

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 an explicit prerequisite and points to the correct alternative for finding a committee_id ('use fec_search_committees to find one'). However, it does not directly contrast with similar financial tools like fec_candidate_financials, so it lacks a full when/when-not comparison.

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