os_industry_totals

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 context about what the totals include (PACs and individual contributions), which is useful but does not describe output format, limitations, or other behavioral traits. The bar is lower due to annotations, and the description meets it minimally.

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, no wasted words. The key information (what it does, scope) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and gives a hint about the return structure (per sector, PAC/individual amounts). It is adequate for selection and invocation, though it could mention the granularity (e.g., sectors are grouped by industry) explicitly.

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%, so parameters cid and cycle are already fully documented. The description does not add additional param-level meaning beyond restating that it's for a candidate. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('industry contribution totals for a candidate'). It adds detail about PACs and individuals, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the specificity is sufficient.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like os_candidate_summary or lobbying_contributions. The description only states what the tool does, without indicating preferred use cases or exclusions.

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