Get Politician Transactions

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context by listing the exact data fields returned (ticker, transaction type, amount range, filing delay, late flag, and summary totals), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction with 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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second details the output. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters (with clear schema), annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential what, why, and what-comes-back without needing to explain return values explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already defines each parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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 states the action ('Get paginated trade history'), the target resource ('specific politician'), and the output content (STOCK Act disclosures with specific fields and a summary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like PnL, recent trades, or leaderboards.

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 does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other politician trade tools (e.g., get_politician_recent_trades, get_senate_trades_by_ticker). Usage is implied by the purpose, but no explicit context or alternatives are given.

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