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. While it mentions the search scope ('across all FEC filings') and gives usage examples, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or pagination behavior for a tool with up to 100 results.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality and use cases, the second provides specific search examples. It's front-loaded with the essential information and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks information about behavioral aspects (rate limits, authentication) and doesn't describe the return format, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by emphasizing the searchable fields (name, employer, occupation) and providing concrete examples ('Goldman Sachs', 'Lobbyist'), but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what's already documented in the schema.

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 for individual donors') and resources ('across all FEC filings'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_candidates or search_spending. It explicitly mentions the searchable fields (name, employer, occupation) and the context of political contributions.

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 this tool ('tracking donor patterns, identifying industry contributions, or researching specific individuals' political giving') and gives examples of employer and occupation searches. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 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.