fec-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by indicating this is a retrieval/read operation and mentioning filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), or what happens when no results match filters.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second adds detail about what data is shown, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about purpose and basic usage. However, it lacks information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by mentioning filtering by amount as a key use case, which relates to the min_amount parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter 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's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve itemized expenditures') and resources ('Schedule B made by a campaign committee'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_receipts (income) or get_independent_expenditures (outside spending). It explicitly mentions what data is shown: payment recipients, amounts, and stated purposes.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for researching significant spending patterns and campaign finance transparency. It mentions filtering by amount as a key use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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