Super PAC Independent Expenditures

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that data is 'FEC public disclosure,' which reinforces non-destructiveness but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination behavior, or result size limits). Acceptable given annotation coverage.

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-load the primary purpose and key filtering options. No extraneous wording. Efficiently communicates essential information in minimal space.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential aspects: data source, type of expenditures, filtering capabilities. Minor omission: no mention of default pagination or result limits, but these are defined in schema. Generally complete for a straightforward query tool.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description summarizes key filters ('Filter by cycle, candidate ID, or support/oppose direction') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool as providing Schedule E independent expenditures (Super PAC spending) with specific verbs ('supporting/opposing') and resources ('federal candidates'). It distinguishes from sibling FEC tools (candidates, committees, elections) by focusing on Super PAC spending.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks statements about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools (e.g., gov.fec.committee_totals for committee-level totals). An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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