fec_candidate_financials

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds context about what financial data is returned (raised, spent, cash, debt). No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs) are disclosed, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states the purpose and output, second states the required input and how to obtain it.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and output fields. It does not discuss error handling or empty results, but this is acceptable for a low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the prerequisite for candidate_id (use fec_search_candidates) but does not enhance the meaning of the cycle parameter beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'financial summary for a candidate', listing specific fields (total raised, spent, cash on hand, debt). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fec_committee_financials by focusing on candidates, and mentions the prerequisite search tool fec_search_candidates.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (using fec_search_candidates to find candidate_id) and implies when to use this tool (to get financial summary). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fec_committee_financials, but the context of siblings and clear focus on candidates provides sufficient guidance.

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