guild_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses GET semantics, the absence of auto-fetching continuation pages, local array limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and that amounts/cumulative fields keep original units and wire values. This is unusually transparent.

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 first sentence is an excellent front-loaded purpose statement, and the caveats are dense but relevant. Some boilerplate ('Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema') is vague given the schema has only two required fields, so it is not perfectly tight.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, parameter semantics, request behavior, pagination limitations, response limits, truncation, and oversized-record handling. It does not describe the exact response shape or field names, which is the main gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 must compensate. It maps guild_id to the guild and type to the building type, supplies concrete valid type examples ('guild_hall and arena'), and explains that required inputs reflect upstream policy. It stops short of an exhaustive list of valid type values or ID formats.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Read contributions for a guild and explicit building type.' This clearly identifies both the action and the target, and 'contributions' distinguishes it from sibling guild tools such as guild_members or guild_brawl_records.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool is for reading guild contributions but requires an explicit building type. It also warns that it is not suitable for complete contribution history because pagination is not established, which functions as a usage exclusion. It does not name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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