search_lobbying

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

The description discloses the cost, key requirement, and returned data fields. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured, covering the essential aspects in one sentence with clear separation of cost, function, and requirement. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data will be returned (income, issue areas, text, lobbyists). It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but for a search tool of this simplicity, the provided context is adequate.

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 schema already provides descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by indicating that client and registrant correspond to 'client company' and 'lobbying firm', but it does not clarify how to combine them or whether any are required.

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: retrieving US federal lobbying filings by client or lobbying firm, and specifies the data returned (income, issue areas, specific-issue text, named lobbyists). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_federal_contracts.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the cost and required key, but does not explain scenarios where this search is preferred or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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