gov.lobbying-filings

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

No annotations provided. Description only states what the tool returns, not behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or side effects. For a read-only query tool, minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence packing all key information with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and filters.

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?

Covers main purpose and filters, but lacks details on pagination, output format, or ordering. Given no output schema, return data is mentioned but not fully structured.

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?

Description adds meaning for filter parameters (lists them) but does not explain pagination parameters (page, pageSize) or provide values for period. Schema coverage is 38%, so description partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves US federal lobbying disclosures, specifies filterable fields (registrant, client, lobbyist, year, period, type), and mentions returned data (income/expenses, registrant+client, issues, document URL). This distinguishes it from sibling government data 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?

Implies usage for lobbying data but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings, there are other gov.* tools but no direct differentiation.

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