FEC Federal Candidates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true and idempotent=true. The description adds that the tool returns 'FEC candidate ID + filing dates', which provides behavioral context about the output, exceeding the annotation details.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first covers purpose and filters; the second covers returns and data source. No redundant phrases, every sentence adds value.

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 output schema present and annotations covering idempotency, the description provides all necessary context: what is searched, how it can be filtered, what is returned, and the data source. The scale '53K+' and explicit office types add completeness.

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 enumerates filterable attributes (name/cycle/office/state/party) but adds no extra constraints or format details 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 uses the verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as '53K+ US federal election candidates'. It lists key filter dimensions (name, cycle, office, state, party) and distinguishes from sibling tools like committee totals or elections by focusing on candidates.

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 searching candidates with various filters but does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like gov.fec.elections or gov.fec.committee_totals. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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