os_candidate_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the requirement for a CID, which is also captured in the schema, and does not disclose additional behaviors like return format, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description lists the key output fields (total raised, spent, cash on hand, debt), giving a good sense of return values despite no output schema. It doesn't mention the optional cycle parameter's default behavior or edge cases like a missing/invalid CID, but for a simple summary lookup, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for cid and cycle (including example format for cid). The description only reiterates the CID requirement and example, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gets a candidate's fundraising summary, listing specific data points: total raised, spent, cash on hand, debt. This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from siblings like os_top_contributors and os_industry_totals by focusing on a single candidate's summary.

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: use this when you need a candidate's fundraising summary and have an OpenSecrets CID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Requires OpenSecrets CID' statement gives a concrete prerequisite, which is useful guidance for when to invoke this tool.

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