fec_search_committees

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe read-only behavior. The description adds an example output and workflow context but does not disclose pagination semantics, match behavior, or return structure beyond the schema. It provides minimal extra behavioral context over the 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 three sentences with no fluff: it states the core purpose, then delivers a high-value investigation tip with an example, and points to the next tool. Every sentence 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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the main search axes and provides a concrete output example (C00034595). It also links to a downstream tool, making the workflow usable. It doesn't fully describe pagination or all return fields, but the example compensates.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds strategic value by showing how to combine 'name' and 'committee_type' ('Q') to find corporate PACs, and the concrete example ('Wells Fargo') clarifies intended usage beyond the schema.

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 searches for political committees (PACs, campaign committees, party committees) by name, state, or type, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from candidate-focused FEC tools by emphasizing committees, and provides a concrete example.

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?

It explicitly gives a recommended use case: combining committee_type='Q' with a company name to find corporate PAC IDs, and directs users to fec_committee_disbursements for the next step. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the example and downstream link offer strong context.

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