fec_candidate_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a financial summary with specific fields, which is useful context. It does not disclose details like cycle behavior or response format, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite/alternative is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that cycle is optional or that the tool is specific to candidates (not committees), but the annotations and schema cover the rest. The pointer to fec_search_candidates is a valuable addition.

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 both parameters. The description adds that candidate_id is required and points to fec_search_candidates, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's examples. 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 states a specific verb ('Get financial summary') and resource ('candidate'), and lists the key fields returned (total raised, spent, cash on hand, debt). It also names the sibling tool (fec_search_candidates) needed to find the required ID, which distinguishes it from related FEC tools like fec_committee_financials.

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 clearly states the prerequisite: requires a candidate_id and directs the agent to fec_search_candidates to find one. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like fec_committee_financials, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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