guild_contributions

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

The description is exceptionally detailed about behavioral traits: it states it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, locally limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, refuses oversized records without partial fields, preserves original units and wire values, and clarifies that other declared filters are forwarded without implied effectiveness. Given no annotations, this fully compensates for the lack of metadata.

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 packed with information but structured as a single dense paragraph with multiple clauses. It begins with purpose (good) but then intermixes behavioral caveats, observations, and limitations without clear paragraphs or bullet points. It is not excessively long, but the lack of hierarchy makes it harder to scan. It is adequately concise but could be better organized.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must explain the return shape. It mentions row counts, 'amounts' and 'cumulative fields', and truncation behavior, but does not describe the structure of a contribution record, what fields are returned, or how they map to the parameters. It also lacks details on error handling or response envelope. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what it will receive.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of the 'type' parameter ('guild_hall' and 'arena') and noting that omitting it results in empty output. It also mentions that required inputs reflect upstream requirements. However, it does not enumerate all valid type values or explain the semantics of 'guild_id' beyond the term 'guild'. It partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but leaves gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('contributions for a guild and explicit building type'), clearly distinguishing it from other guild-related tools like guild_list or guild_members. It also specifies the primary key ('guild_id' and 'type') and hints at distinct behavior for different building types, which is unambiguous.

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 usage by focusing on a specific resource and notes that omitting the type yields empty results, suggesting the type must be provided. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name exclusion conditions or alternative tools. Some context is present but it is not comprehensive.

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