lobbying_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns expenses/income, issues lobbied, and registrant/client info, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a bulleted list of search parameters, and a concise return statement. Every line adds value, and it is neither verbose nor under-specified.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, search dimensions, and return values. However, it omits filing_type and page_size from the 'Search by' list, which could lead an agent to overlook these filters. This is a minor completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and enums for all parameters. The description repeats some parameter examples (e.g., 'Pfizer', 'Google', 'TAX') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search lobbying disclosure filings.' It clearly states the purpose (find who is lobbying Congress, on what issues, and how much they're spending) and distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like lobbying_detail and lobbying_contributions by focusing on filing searches.

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 clear usage context by enumerating search dimensions (registrant, client, issue, year) and return types. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like lobbying_detail for specific filing details, so it stops short of a full 5.

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