fec_top_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that results are ranked by total money raised. However, it does not disclose default number of results (20) or that pagination is limited to 50 via per_page.

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?

Single sentence that clearly states the action and criteria. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not hint at the response structure (e.g., list of candidates with amounts). It adequately covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on return format or sorting order.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal value beyond stating 'for a given office and election cycle'. Parameters like state and per_page are explained in schema but not elaborated in description.

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 retrieves top candidates ranked by total money raised for a specific office and election cycle. This distinguishes it from sibling FEC tools like fec_candidate_financials or fec_search_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?

The description implies usage for ranking top candidates but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fec_candidate_financials for detailed financials or fec_search_candidates for broader searches.

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