fec_search_candidates

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to re-state those. The description adds only the FEC data source and filter fields, with no additional behavioral details like pagination, return format, or rate limits. It is not contradictory, but it adds little beyond the annotations.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource with the key filter list, and the second gives the data source. There is no wasted wording, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries some burden to explain what a successful call returns. It does not state that the tool returns a list of matching candidates or mention pagination. The description is adequate for a simple search, but the lack of return-value context and any indication that at least one filter is useful makes it incomplete.

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 every parameter is already documented with descriptions in the schema. The description repeats the filter fields but offers no new semantic information about relationships, default behaviors, or combination rules. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('federal election candidates') and enumerates filter dimensions (name, state, party, office, election year), making it easy to distinguish at a high level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools like fec_search_committees or fec_candidate_financials, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to search for federal election candidates. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as fec_candidate_financials or fec_search_committees, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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