lobbying_registrants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches registrants, which is a scoping detail, but doesn't disclose behavior like partial matching, pagination limits, or what fields are returned. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It's concise and to the point, with no wasted words. It could add a bit more context, but for its length it's efficient.

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 one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., registrant details, addresses, totals). An agent might not know what to expect from the result, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify fuzzy matching, case sensitivity, or how page_size interacts with results. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('lobbying firms and organizations registered to lobby Congress'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lobbying_search, lobbying_detail, and lobbying_lobbyists by focusing on registrants. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage: search by registrant name. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus lobbying_search or lobbying_lobbyists, nor does it provide exclusions. The context of 'registered to lobby Congress' gives some situational guidance, but no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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