find_candidate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond these: the call is paid at a specific rate ('$0.005') and requires an authentication credential ('WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY'). This is useful transparency that the annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that packs cost, purpose, result fields, ordering guidance, and a prerequisite with no filler. The most decision-relevant detail ('PAID ($0.005)') is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed: what to search, what data comes back, what it costs, what credential is required, and where it fits in the workflow with get_candidate_money. Annotations cover safety and openness. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'candidate' is already described as 'Candidate name, min 3 chars (required)' in the schema. The main description does add what the resolved output includes, but it does not add new meaning about the parameter itself beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('US federal candidates'), and the key fields returned ('candidate ids, party, office, state, district, and principal campaign committees'). It also distinguishes itself from the closer sibling by calling itself 'the cheap resolver before get_candidate_money.' An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it relates to nearby tools.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'The cheap resolver before get_candidate_money,' giving clear usage guidance for when this tool should be invoked relative to a specific alternative. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY'), which helps the agent decide whether it can call this tool at all.

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