gov.lobbying-filings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return fields (income/expenses, registrant+client, issues, document URL) but does not cover pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is partially transparent but lacks completeness.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the domain and purpose, then lists filters and returns. No extraneous words; every phrase serves a purpose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of capabilities (filters, returns). However, it omits details like pagination behavior (page, pageSize) and error handling, which are relevant for an API tool.

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 only 38%, with most parameters (lobbyist, year, period, page, pageSize) lacking descriptions. The description lists filterable fields but adds no additional meaning or examples for these undocumented parameters. It repeats the schema's partial descriptions without elaboration.

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 provides US federal lobbying disclosures from the Senate LDA, specifying the key data points (who lobbies for whom, issues, amounts) and filter criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gov.bill-summaries, gov.congress-*) by focusing on lobbying filings, a unique domain.

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 for querying lobbying data through listed filters (registrant, client, year, etc.) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other government data tools. No when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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