fec_top_candidates

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail of ranking by fundraising totals, but does not disclose other traits like pagination limits, default result size, or any caveats about data freshness. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and states the core behavior with no wasted words. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal length.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose and output type (top candidates ranked by money raised). Parameters are fully covered by the schema. It could optionally mention the shape of results (e.g., candidate names and totals) but this is reasonably inferable, so a 4 is justified.

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%, so all parameters (office, election_year, state, per_page) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('top candidates'), and the ranking criterion ('by total money raised') with a scope ('for a given office and election cycle'). This distinguishes it from siblings like fec_candidate_financials which focus on individual candidate financial data.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fec_candidate_financials or fec_search_candidates. It does not mention exclusions or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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