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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is minimal and leaves the agent unaware of important constraints.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or fluff.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no required fields), the description is too minimal. It does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., need candidate_id or committee_id?), expected output format, or any usage patterns. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool effectively.

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 for all 7 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the 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 states the tool retrieves individual donor/contribution data from FEC Schedule A filings. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('donor/contribution data'), and the context of sibling tools (get_fec_candidates, get_fec_spending) further distinguishes its purpose.

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 when donor data is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_fec_candidates, get_fec_spending), nor any conditions or exclusions. Usage is left inferred.

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