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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context: coverage is partial and growing, the result enumerates available states, and pay is only returned where a state discloses it.

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?

Three sentences, each mapping to a distinct mode, with the core resource identified first. Dense but every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes return values per mode (counts and top clients/firms, matches plus who-lobbies-for-whom, or the set of states). With no required parameters, the remaining gap is only the absence of an explicit alternative-tool pointer.

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%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by explaining the semantics of the query/state interaction and how the combination changes the meaning of the result, including that query matches organizations, firms, or lobbyists.

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 resource (state-level lobbying registration records) and breaks the tool's behavior into three concrete input/output modes keyed on which parameters are supplied. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like search_lobbying or get_lobbyist without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent what each parameter combination produces ('With a state only… With a state and a name… With a name only…'), which is effectively invocation guidance. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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