get_congress_ticker_rollup

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing plan gating, the PLAN_REQUIRED error on Free/Starter, the live no-cache behavior, the meaning of non-superseded trades, and the 200-with-empty-array behavior for tickers with no congressional trades. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 dense but appropriately detailed, covering return shape, edge cases, plan limits, and live behavior. It is not overly verbose, though the explanation about the absence of a separate ticker entity could have been tightened.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the expected return shape, empty-ticker behavior, and access constraints. It could be even more complete by specifying exact response fields or boundary behavior, but it is enough for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond repeating the trailing-window behavior for window_days. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema descriptions carry the semantic load.

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's purpose: it returns every politician who traded a given ticker, with per-politician trade counts and ticker-level totals. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that is semantically distinct from sibling tools like get_transactions or list_congress_trades.

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 gives clear parameter context, such as optional window_days behavior and Pro plan requirements, but it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over a sibling like get_congress_politician or list_congress_trades. It provides implied usage rather than direct routing guidance.

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