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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add meaningful caveats beyond the annotations: the snapshot is 'bounded' and 'portable', and the explicit disclaimer 'this is not a certificate' warns against over-interpreting the output as authoritative. It says nothing about auth requirements, freshness, or size limits of the bounded snapshot.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the most important caveat ('not a certificate'). No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of specificity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description is still thin for a tool with a required patterned identifier, 0% schema coverage, and 15 sibling commons_* tools. An agent cannot tell from this text when to call it, what actor_id should be, or how the report differs from commons_contributions.

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?

There is a single required parameter, actor_id, with zero schema description coverage and a strict pattern (^cpa_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{22}$). The description never mentions the parameter, what a 'cpa_' identifier refers to, or how to obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ('Read') and an object ('a bounded portable snapshot of visible work and source fingerprints'), so the general shape is clear, but the phrasing is abstract jargon rather than a plain statement of what a 'contribution report' is. It does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling commons_contributions, leaving the agent to guess which one produces the report.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many commons_* siblings. The only hint at scope is 'visible work', which does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to commons_contributions or commons_result.

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