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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the ranking basis, the 12-month lookback window, and that spending figures are attached to each organization — behavioral context not present in the annotations. It stops short of noting result limits or pagination.

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?

One dense but well-formed sentence carries the core definition, followed by a short examples sentence. The scope, ranking, and returned fields are front-loaded. Slightly run-on, but every clause 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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape — and it does, naming the firms/organizations, the ranking metric, and the spending field. Full annotations cover safety. Minor gap: no mention of result size or ordering ties.

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%, so the single 'agency' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces what counts as an agency (including chambers and the White House) but adds no syntax or formatting rules beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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+resource: who lobbies a given federal agency, over what window (past 12 months), with what ranking (number of reports naming it) and what extra data (past-year lobbying spending). The examples (FDA, EPA, DoD, Treasury, FCC, Senate) make the resource unambiguous, and the phrase 'agency or chamber' distinguishes it from bill-level siblings like who_lobbies_on_bill.

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 the use case (find which firms/orgs lobby a given agency) but never states when to pick this over siblings such as who_lobbies_on, who_lobbies_on_bill, or industry_lobbying. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so routing is left to inference.

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