fec-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('candidate identifiers and their principal campaign committee IDs') and a downstream use case, but lacks critical behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, return value, and usage context. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details (pagination, errors, etc.) that would be important for an AI agent to use it effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax, ranking, or result limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Search FEC records for candidates by name') and resources ('candidates'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on candidate search rather than committee finances, donors, or spending. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('candidate identifiers and their principal campaign committee IDs').

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 for when to use the tool ('Useful for campaign finance research and transparency investigations') and implies it's a prerequisite for detailed financial information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use search_donors instead).

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