fec_committee_disbursements

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

Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds useful behavioral context: it shows the type of data returned, advises trying multiple cycles because PACs give early, and provides common PAC IDs. There is 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 longer than average but every sentence carries value: purpose, use-case framing, example, workflow, cycle advice, and reference data are each one distinct block. It is front-loaded with the core definition and would be slightly tighter without the common-PAC-ID list, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the return shows ('which candidates and committees received money, how much, and when'), offers a step-by-step workflow, a realistic example, and parameter guidance. For a read-only query tool this is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches params with concrete values: committee_id examples for named PACs, recipient_name examples, and a full worked example mapping parameters to a real investigation. This goes materially beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get itemized disbursements from a PAC or committee' and details what is shown (recipient, amount, date). It clearly differentiates from FEC siblings by focusing on committee disbursements rather than contributions or financial summaries.

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 strong usage context by calling this 'the KEY tool for conflict-of-interest investigations' and gives a concrete workflow that chains fec_search_committees before this tool, plus a tip to try multiple cycles. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives (e.g., fec_individual_contributions), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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