search_lobbying

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

The description adds important behavioral context not present in annotations: the tool is paid ($0.01) and requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. These are operationally critical disclosures. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true or destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the critical paid marker, then states the resource, return fields, optional filter, and authentication requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields explicitly. It also covers cost, authentication, and optional filtering. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the tool is sufficiently specified for a first call.

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 all three parameters. The description adds mild extra meaning by framing client and registrant as the searchable entities ('by client company or lobbying firm') and marking year as optional, but it does not materially extend the schema.

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 identifies the resource as US federal lobbying filings and enumerates the returned content: reported income, issue areas, specific-issue text, and named lobbyists. The lobbying domain distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_federal_contracts, though there is no explicit verb such as 'search' in the description.

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 prerequisites — PAID ($0.01) and Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY — and notes an optional year filter, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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