lobbying_detail

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral content by specifying the output scope: all issues lobbied, specific bills, and lobbyist names. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate the response, especially since no output schema is provided.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output contents; the second provides the essential input source. Every clause 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 one-parameter, read-only detail endpoint, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, what input is needed, and where that input comes from. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming the three key content categories an agent should expect.

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%: the single filing_uuid parameter is already documented as 'Filing UUID from lobbying_search results.' The description repeats this same guidance without adding new constraints, formats, or domain rules, so it meets the baseline but adds no additional semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Get full detail') and a specific resource ('a specific lobbying filing'), then enumerates what is included: every issue lobbied, specific bills mentioned, and lobbyist names. This distinguishes it clearly from search or list-oriented siblings like lobbying_search and lobbying_registrants.

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 explicit sequencing guidance: use the filing UUID from lobbying_search results. This tells an agent when and with what input to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it a step below the strongest possible guidance.

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