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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that matches come back with their Gov Relations page, and says nothing about result limits, ranking, or behavior when no match is found. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the resource enumeration and followed by the routing instruction. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what it searches and how the result is used downstream. The only gap is the shape of the result set (count, ordering, empty-result behavior), which keeps it short of a 5.

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% and the schema itself documents both parameters, including the type enum and query examples. The description adds the concept of slug resolution as the output's purpose, but no additional syntax or matching semantics (partial vs exact, case sensitivity) beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and enumerates the exact resource types searched (lobbyists, firms, clients, issues, agencies, bills) with parenthetical clarification of what a client is. This distinguishes it clearly from the get_* siblings, which retrieve a single known entity rather than searching by name.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use it first to turn a name into a slug for get_firm, get_client or get_lobbyist,' naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. The ordering relationship (search first, then fetch) is stated without inference.

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