find_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is paid ($0.005), requires a private key, and returns specific fields. It does not discuss failures or side effects, but for a read-only search, this is adequate. The cost and auth disclosures are valuable beyond what structured data would imply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key return fields, then usage context. No wasted words; every sentence provides necessary information. Excellent conciseness.

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 explains what it returns (list of fields), the cost, and the auth requirement. It references the next logical tool (get_candidate_money). It does not detail error handling or pagination, but for a simple search with a single parameter and no output schema, it covers the essential context. Slightly incomplete regarding edge cases but acceptable.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Candidate name, min 3 chars'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it repeats the 'by name' aspect and mentions min 3 chars, which is already in the schema. The returned fields are useful context but not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: search US federal candidates by name and return specific fields (candidate ids, party, office, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'cheap resolver before get_candidate_money', which differentiates it from sibling tools, especially the related get_candidate_money.

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 explicit usage context: it is positioned as a preprocessing step before get_candidate_money, implying when to use it (for cheap candidate lookups before expensive money queries). It also states the auth requirement (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY) and cost, giving clear operational prerequisites.

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