fec_search_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the fact that the data comes from the FEC and that it supports searching by the listed fields, but it does not describe pagination behavior (although per_page and page parameters exist), result ordering, or any rate limits. This adds minimal context beyond the annotations and schema.

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 one efficient sentence: it states the tool's purpose, lists the primary filter dimensions, and identifies the data source. No fluff, no repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Search' and resource.

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 this is a search tool with good schema descriptions and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential purpose and filter dimensions. It does not mention pagination defaults or output structure, but for a search tool with no output schema and clear parameters, that is a minor gap. Naming sibling alternatives (e.g., fec_search_committees) would have made it a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, as every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description lists the search dimensions (name, state, party, office, election year) which nicely summarizes the parameters, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and specifies the resource ('federal election candidates') along with the key filter dimensions: name, state, party, office, or election year. It also provides the data provenance ('Data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fec_search_committees or fec_candidate_financials.

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 clearly states what the tool searches (federal election candidates) and what filters are available. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fec_search_committees or mention when to prefer this over fec_candidate_financials, but the context of candidate search is clear enough for an agent to differentiate. A brief note about when to use committee search would make it a 5.

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