Get Politicians

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description describes a read-only operation (listing/searching). It goes beyond annotations by specifying return fields (trade counts, last trade date, net buy/sell direction) and pagination behavior, providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific details. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With 7 optional parameters (all documented), an output schema present, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the core functionality, filters, pagination, and return fields, providing all necessary context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters semantically ('Filter by party, state, or search by name') and listing key return fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the verb ('List and search'), resource ('congressional politicians who have STOCK Act trading disclosures'), and scope (filters, return fields). It distinguishes from siblings like get_politician_detail or get_politician_activity by specifying the core functionality of listing/searching multiple politicians with trading data.

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 implies usage for retrieving a filtered list of politicians with trading disclosures but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_politician_detail for a single politician's details). No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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