fec_outside_spending_by_candidate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context that it returns aggregated totals (supporting vs. opposing) and points to the raw-item alternative, going beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternative. No redundant information.

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 aggregation tool with 2 parameters and clear annotations, the description fully explains what it returns (totals), when to use it, and how it differs from the raw-item tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (candidate_id and cycle), including an example and source for candidate_id. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get TOTAL'), resource ('independent spending by candidate'), and explicitly notes it is a Schedule E totals summary. Distinguishes from the sibling fec_independent_expenditures by indicating it is not the itemized breakdown.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use it ('for an exact summary... instead of paginating raw line items') and names the alternative tool (fec_independent_expenditures) for itemized data. Provides clear routing guidance.

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