fec_committee_financials

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some context about committee scope and the prerequisite lookup, but it does not disclose behavior such as default cycle behavior, response shape, or API limitations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite is immediately actionable. 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?

Given the small parameter set and strong read-only annotations, the description is adequate for making a basic call. However, with no output schema, it leaves the agent without hints about what financial fields to expect or how the optional cycle parameter affects results.

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 only that committee_id is required and that fec_search_committees should be used to find it, which is helpful but not a deeper explanation of cycle semantics.

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') and a specific resource ('financial totals for a committee'), and it clarifies the committee types (PAC, campaign, party). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like fec_candidate_financials or fec_committee_disbursements.

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?

It clearly states that committee_id is required and instructs the agent to use fec_search_committees to obtain one. This gives immediate actionable routing, but it does not mention when to prefer alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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