lobbying_lobbyists

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as indicating results include the lobbyist's firm, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, partial-match rules, or response structure. This is acceptable given the annotations but not enriched.

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 short sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds contextual detail but is somewhat redundant with the first, repeating the idea of searching by name/firm.

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 simple read-only search with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and primary search keys. However, it does not explain whether at least one parameter is required, how parameters combine, or what the response contains, leaving minor gaps given the lack of an output schema.

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 has 100% coverage, with descriptions for firm, name, and page_size. The description only rephrases the name/firm search keys and adds no extra detail about parameter format, constraints, or interaction behavior.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'individual lobbyists,' with scope limited by name or firm. It further states the purpose: 'Find specific people who lobby Congress and which firms they work for,' which distinguishes it from sibling lobbying tools focused on registrants or contributions.

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 use when the agent needs to find lobbyists by name or firm, providing general context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as lobbying_search or lobbying_registrants, nor does it mention exclusions or specific use cases.

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