fec_independent_expenditures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that this returns itemized line items (as opposed to totals) and clarifies the FOR/AGAINST semantics. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then the workflow, and finally the sibling distinction. It is not overly verbose and each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with all-caps 'KEY' and 'WORKFLOW' is a bit emphatic but still clear.

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 read-only query tool with all-optional parameters, the description covers the main use case, the workflow, and the differentiation from a sibling. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or return format, but given no output schema and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap. The tool is well-specified for an agent to call 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description enhances this by giving a concrete example candidate ID ('P80000722') and explicitly instructing to obtain candidate_id from fec_search_candidates. It also re-emphasizes the meaning of support_oppose, adding practical guidance that is not in 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('itemized independent expenditures (Schedule E)'), and the domain (outside spending by Super PACs). It also frames it as the KEY tool for a common question and explicitly contrasts with fec_outside_spending_by_candidate, distinguishing it from that sibling.

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 gives a concrete WORKFLOW: first call fec_search_candidates to get candidate_id, then use this tool filtered by that ID. It also explicitly says to use fec_outside_spending_by_candidate when totals are needed instead of line items, so the agent knows exactly when to pick this tool over the alternative.

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