uw_politicians

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint as true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing multiple actions and their parameter requirements, which goes beyond what annotations provide. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a bulleted list of actions. It is concise given the amount of information, but could be more structured (e.g., markdown sections). No verbosity.

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 tool is complex with multiple actions and no output schema. The description does not explain how to specify the action (e.g., hidden action field) or describe return values. Annotation coverage is good, but for a tool with empty schema and many actions, the description leaves gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty, but the description describes parameters for each action (e.g., politician_id required for portfolio). This mismatch creates confusion: an agent relying on the schema would see no parameters, yet the description requires them. The description adds meaning but conflict with schema reduces usability.

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 provides 'Access UnusualWhales politician portfolio and trading data' and lists specific actions (people, portfolio, recent_trades, holders, disclosures). This distinguishes it from siblings like uw_alerts or uw_congress, each focusing on different domains.

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 describes each action's purpose (e.g., 'Get recent politician trades') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling list offers context, but within the description, usage guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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