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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the receipt is immutable and its status is explicitly NOT review or integration status, which prevents a real misinterpretation. It omits access/permission requirements for non-public contributions.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the status caveat placed immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 should convey what comes back; it names the receipt but not its shape or fields. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, yet the caveat about receipt status raises questions the description does not fully resolve.

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?

A single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description bears the burden. It implies the id identifies a public contribution, but says nothing about the 64-hex format or how to obtain an id, leaving the pattern in the schema as the only format signal.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a public contribution and its immutable storage receipt'), which is more than a name restatement. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_contribution_inbox by scoping to a single public contribution, but it never names or contrasts siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: read one contribution by id rather than a list/inbox. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the 'public contribution' scoping.

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