search_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'search' and 'returns,' but does not explicitly state that no data is modified or mention rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences convey the purpose, output, and use case with no redundancy or unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's actions and output (identifiers and committee IDs) and provides a use case. It lacks information about pagination, result limits, or error handling, but the schema and multiple parameters make it fairly complete for a search tool.

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 coverage, each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., q as candidate name, election_year with range). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action 'Search FEC records for candidates by name' and explains what it returns (candidate identifiers and committee IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_committee_finances or search_donors by focusing on 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 notes that the returned IDs are 'required for retrieving detailed financial information,' implying this tool should be used before committee finance lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide direct comparisons to siblings.

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