Get Politician Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (periods, counts, values, top tickers, type breakdown) without contradicting annotations. No behavioral quirks or auth needs are omitted.

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?

Two sentences efficiently communicate the tool's purpose, data content, and usage context. No extraneous information, and the most critical details are front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary aspects for a read tool: what data is returned and its purpose. The presence of annotations and schema makes this complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (slug) adequately described. The description does not add new information about the parameter itself; it explains output features (periods) which are not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 it retrieves activity metrics for a politician with specific breakdowns by time period, mentioning key data points like buy/sell counts, top tickers, and transaction types. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing aggregated periodic data over individual transactions or profit/loss.

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 the tool is useful for analyzing trading patterns over time, implying usage for aggregated periodic data, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or suggest alternatives. With many sibling tools, direct guidance would improve selection.

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