ftm_contributions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a data-source/coverage detail ('via the National Institute on Money in Politics') and the search scope, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any filtering limitations beyond the parameters. This matches the get_calls calibration example where annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds modest context.

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 two-sentence, front-loaded summary. The first sentence begins with the action verb 'Search' and a concrete resource. The second sentence adds essential coverage and provenance. No wasted words.

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 straightforward search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and data source. It does not describe the return payload shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simple query nature make this acceptable. Slightly more detail on what constitutes a 'contribution' record might help, but not critical.

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%, with each parameter already explained (year, limit, state, donorId, candidateId). The description's phrase 'by candidate, donor, state, and year' simply mirrors the schema and adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Search state-level campaign finance contributions by candidate, donor, state, and year.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling FEC (federal) tools. The addition of 'Covers all 50 states via the National Institute on Money in Politics' further clarifies scope.

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 clear context: it is for state-level campaign finance data, not federal. It explicitly says 'state-level' and covers 'all 50 states', which helps an agent choose this over similarly named FEC tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for federal contributions, use fec_search_candidates').

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