lobbying_contributions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful legal context (LDA disclosure requirement) but doesn't disclose operational details such as pagination defaults or how results are ordered, beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence and adding a concise legal note in the second. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with four optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and legal context well. It clarifies what results will show, making the tool understandable even without an explicit return format specification.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (page_size, filing_year, lobbyist_name, registrant_name). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search campaign contributions made by lobbyists' and specifies what it shows (which lobbyists donated to which politicians). This distinguishes it from sibling lobbying tools by focusing on contributions, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios.

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 tool is for finding lobbyist political contributions, with the LDA requirement providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus related tools like lobbying_search or control_contributions, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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