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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the reputation is non-transferable, derived from immutable human-verified receipts, excludes revoked records, and grants no commercial rights. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The lead sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add necessary exclusions and legal context. Every sentence 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 tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, with no output schema, it omits what the returned reputation looks like, how revocation is represented, and what a nil or empty result means. It is serviceable but not fully 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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions actorId or clarifies its meaning beyond the schema's name and pattern. The pattern does provide format guidance, but the description adds no parameter-specific semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Read') and resource ('non-transferable ACTE from immutable human-verified contribution receipts'), and adds important scope constraints ('Revoked records do not count'). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as list_ai_book_contributions.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_ai_book_contributions or submit_ai_contribution_claim. The statements about revoked records and commercial rights clarify behavior, but usage context must be inferred from the tool name and description.

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