congress_nomination_full_profile

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, and description adds that it combines 4 endpoints in parallel, providing useful insight into internal behavior. No contradictions, and it discloses the composite nature beyond the annotation.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose and benefit. Each sentence adds value: purpose, composition, usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Does not describe the output format or structure, which is important since there is no output schema. However, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its scope. Could be more complete with return details.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but schema itself is clear. Baseline of 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a complete presidential nomination profile in one call, combining multiple data sources. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_nomination_details, congress_nomination_committees, and congress_nomination_hearings.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of calling individual endpoints, and suggests cross-referencing with lobbying_search. Does not cover when not to use it, but the recommendation is clear and actionable.

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