os_top_contributors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description uses 'Get' and 'Shows' which align with read-only behavior. It adds that the output is grouped by organization with PAC and individual contributions, but doesn't disclose pagination, defaults, or data limitations beyond what annotations already cover.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose and the second clarifies the contribution types shown. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 read-only tool with two straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the return scope (top contributing organizations with PAC and individual breakdowns). It could note the optional cycle default or response format, but the essentials are covered.

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 the schema already documents cid and cycle. The description adds that the output is organized by contributor organization, but doesn't enrich the cycle parameter or provide additional parameter constraints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get top contributors (organizations) to a candidate' with a specific verb and resource, and adds that it shows PAC and individual contributions by organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like os_candidate_summary and os_industry_totals.

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool to get top contributing organizations for a candidate. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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