Get Politician Donors

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

Description mentions it returns a paginated list and details the fields (name, amount, type, employer/occupation, committee details). However, this adds minimal value beyond the output schema (which exists) and annotations (readOnlyHint=true). No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences: purpose and returned fields, usage trigger, and link to alternative. No redundant information. Highly efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose, usage, and alternatives. It does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema exists. Complete for the complexity.

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?

All parameters are already described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance or usage examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'paginated list of campaign donors' for a single politician across one election cycle. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_politician_donor_summary' by specifying that it returns the full donor list, not just a summary.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a user asks "who donated to <politician>" or wants the full donor list.' Also provides an alternative: 'For a quick top-10 + cycle totals overview, use get_politician_donor_summary instead.' This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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