fec_search_committees

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's added value is the investigation-specific usage pattern and the example output. It discloses that committee_type='Q' + name returns a committee ID, which is useful context. No contradiction with 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 tightly written: one sentence for the core purpose, a bolded critical tip, a concrete example, and a next-step pointer. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the primary use case, gives a working example, and connects to the next tool in the workflow. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but those are standard for search tools and the schema covers per_page. This is adequate for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by demonstrating how to combine committee_type='Q' and name in a real example, and clarifies that 'Q' means Qualified PAC for corporate searches. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 tool searches for political committees by name, state, or type, distinguishing it from sibling FEC tools like fec_search_candidates. The specific example with 'Wells Fargo' and committee_type='Q' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('CRITICAL for investigations') and provides a concrete workflow, including the next step to use fec_committee_disbursements with the returned committee_id. This is more than enough to guide an agent on when to select it over alternatives.

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