fec_search_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Search'. The description adds the data source (FEC), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result format, pagination behavior, or rate limits. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description adds modest value.

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 two concise sentences: first sentence states purpose and filters, second sentence provides data source. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value.

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 tool is a search with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential elements but omits details like return format (e.g., candidate IDs, names) or pagination behavior. Slightly incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description merely lists the filter fields without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a search tool with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('federal election candidates'), lists specific filters (name, state, party, office, election year), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fec_candidate_financials or fec_search_committees by specifying the data source (FEC) and the type of data (candidates).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any comparison to other FEC search tools like fec_search_committees or fec_top_candidates. Users must infer from context.

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