Get Donor Aggregates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with this by describing a data retrieval operation. The description adds valuable context about the output structure (total raised, top donors, splits, leaderboard) beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then providing usage examples and sibling differentiation. No extraneous 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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. All three parameters are optional with descriptions. The description covers the expected use cases and output components sufficiently for a market-wide rollup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter constraints or defaults (though cycle default is mentioned in schema). Given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get market-wide campaign-finance rollups across ALL tracked politicians for a cycle.' It lists specific data points (total raised, top donors, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'get_politician_donor_summary' for single-politician queries.

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 explicit usage guidance with example questions ('who are the biggest donors in 2024?' or 'which party raised more?') and tells when not to use the tool ('For a single politician, use get_politician_donor_summary'). This helps the agent select appropriately among siblings.

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