lobbying_contributions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it shows the relationships between lobbyists and politicians, which clarifies the kind of result, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits, rate limits, or response format. This aligns with the calibration example where read-only annotations lower the burden.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the legal relevance is stated in the second sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

This is a simple read-only search tool with four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description provides enough to understand what it does and differentiates it from the lobbying family. It could mention that it returns a list or that no parameters are required, but given the read-only, open-world annotations and the simplicity of the tool, it is adequately complete.

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%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the general subject. Per the calibration rule, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds nothing extra.

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 verb (search) and resource (campaign contributions made by lobbyists) and specifies the output ('which lobbyists donated to which politicians'). It distinguishes this tool from the lobbying family (lobbying_search, lobbying_registrants, etc.) by focusing specifically on campaign contributions, not general 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 gives context (used to disclose political contributions under LDA) and implies it is for contribution lookups, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the similar lobbying tools. No alternatives are named, and there are no exclusions stated, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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