get_congress_politician

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/anomaly annotations, the description discloses live execution with no caching, the Pro plan requirement (402 on Free/Starter), and the 404 behavior when neither ID nor slug matches. These are valuable behavioral traits that the annotations do not already cover.

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 front-loaded with purpose and contains all necessary behavioral context in a compact two-sentence paragraph, but there’s a small redundancy: the pseudo‑'Requires Pro plan or higher' line repeats the parenthetical '(Pro plan+)' from the opening sentence. Still, overall structure and placement are excellent.

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 there is no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the required return data: identity fields, buy/sell trade counts, most recent disclosure date, top N tickers, and recent trades with their shape. It also covers error responses and plan restrictions, making the tool realistically callable end-to-end without additional assumptions.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'most traded' is by trade count and that recent trades have a specific shared shape, but it does not materially change understanding of the three parameters beyond the schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one politician's congressional trading profile.' It then enumerates the exact returned fields and differentiates the tool from paging /v1/congress/trades by framing it as a 'one-call politician overview,' which helps an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_congress_trades or get_congress_ticker_rollup.

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 directs agents with 'Use this for a one-call politician overview rather than paging /v1/politician= yourself.' This names the alternative approach and tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, satisfying both when-to-use and an alternative context.

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