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 effectively communicates the tool's investigative nature and typical use cases for identifying questionable spending. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness, which would be helpful for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and value statement. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The two-sentence structure is efficient and information-dense.

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 complexity of a 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose and usage. However, it doesn't describe what the results look like (format, fields returned) or potential limitations, which would be helpful for a search tool without output schema documentation.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about what kinds of searches are appropriate (e.g., 'steak dinner', 'Disney', 'golf'), but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema descriptions already cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('search') and resource ('campaign spending (Schedule B) across all committees'), with explicit differentiation from siblings by focusing on expenditure analysis rather than committee finances, donor searches, or receipt/disbursement listings. It provides concrete examples of what to search for, making the purpose highly specific.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to find questionable expenditures...') and provides clear context ('Essential for identifying spending patterns and potential misuse of campaign funds'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on spending patterns rather than general committee data or other financial aspects.

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