Get Politician Detail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'get' verb confirms a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific data fields returned, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect beyond the annotation's binary safety signal.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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 single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary context. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to obtain the required input.

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 coverage, the schema already documents the slug parameter well. The description adds value by explaining that the slug should be obtained from get_politicians and provides an example ('sen-nancy-pelosi'), which is helpful for correct invocation.

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 explicitly lists the return fields (party, state, chamber, trade statistics, filing delay metrics, most traded sector, and 10 most recent transactions), clearly distinguishing it from many sibling politician tools that focus on narrower aspects like activity, donors, or transactions.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_politicians first to find the slug.' This guides the agent on parameter acquisition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for different needs, which would elevate it to a 5.

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