lobbying_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the output content (issues, bills, lobbyists) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, error conditions, or response format. This matches the 'middle' benchmark where annotations do the heavy lifting.

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: the first states the action and expected contents, the second gives the required parameter source. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers purpose, expected return fields, and how to obtain the required UUID. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, and the parameter description ('Filing UUID from lobbying_search results') is identical to the usage guidance in the tool description. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('specific lobbying filing') and lists what is included (every issue lobbied, specific bills mentioned, lobbyist names). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lobbying_search, which is for discovering filings.

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 explicitly instructs to use the filing UUID from lobbying_search results, providing clear context and prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative detail tools like lobbying_contributions, but the guidance is still unambiguous.

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