Get Politician Donor Summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is already set, so the description's role is lower. It adds value by detailing the bundled nature and specific data returned (cycle totals, top donors), providing useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, and contains no fluff. 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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. No gaps.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default cycle behavior is already in schema). 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 returns a 'bundled donor summary for a single politician' including specific fields (cycle totals, donor count, top donors). It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool get_politician_donors, which handles paginated lists.

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 context with example questions ('who funds <politician>', 'biggest donors to <politician>') and tells when to use the alternative sibling tool for a full paginated list.

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