fec_committee_disbursements

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

Description adds value beyond annotations: explains it shows itemized data and gives workflow context. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so no contradiction. Could mention pagination but not critical.

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?

Description is well-structured with purpose, example, workflow, and tips. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Efficient for the information provided.

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?

Covers usage context well: importance for conflict-of-interest, workflow, cycle advice. No output schema but return value is implied. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds practical context: recipient_name examples, committee_id common IDs, and cycle usage advice. Enhances understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves itemized disbursements from PACs/committees, specifying the verb, resource, and purpose (trace money). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fec_search_committees and fec_candidate_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?

Provides explicit workflow (step 1: search committees, step 2: use this tool with recipient_name filter), example common PAC IDs, and advice to try multiple cycles. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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