lobbying_registrants

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or any limits beyond what is in the schema. Since the description adds no value beyond the annotation, this is a weak disclosure.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, though more detail on result behavior would be helpful in a tool-rich context.

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%, with both 'name' and 'page_size' documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear examples (e.g., 'Amazon', 'Pfizer'). This meets the baseline for high coverage, though no extra semantic value is added.

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 function: 'Search lobbying firms and organizations registered to lobby Congress.' It identifies a specific verb ('search') and resource ('lobbying firms and organizations'), making the purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'lobbying_search' or 'lobbying_lobbyists', though the focus on registrants implies a unique scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a domain with many lobbying-related sibling tools (e.g., lobbying_search, lobbying_detail), explicit usage guidance would help.

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