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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates this is a read operation fetching public data, which is clear. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., what happens if the identifier is invalid, or if data is missing). No contradictions with annotations are present since none are provided.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key contents. It is not verbose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the identifier clarification from the content list, but as is, it is effective and 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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basics adequately. It explains the identifier format and typical returned fields. However, it lacks completeness for edge cases (e.g., what if multiple fields are absent, or if the contributor doesn't exist). Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described in the schema as 'Colony username, sub, or display name.' The description adds meaning by explicitly listing the acceptable identifier types (username, sub, display name) and the fields returned (proposals, seconds, measurements, public ballots). This goes beyond the schema's basic description, providing richer context for the parameter and expected output.

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 what the tool retrieves ('a contributor's public record') and specifies the identifiers accepted (Colony username, sub, or display name). It also lists the contents (proposals, seconds, measurements, and public ballots), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposal or get_measurement. However, it slightly overloads with multiple nouns and doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only lookup.

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 when to use this tool—to fetch a contributor's public record using a supported identifier. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. Given the sibling context, alternatives like get_proposal or get_history are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear exclusions.

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