aps_build_contributor_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it returns a null value for no-share contributors and that the response includes the full signed record and per-axis data. It also mentions the trust property (verifiable without trusting the gateway), adding behavioral context. It omits any mention of side effects or permissions, but as a query-building tool, no mutations are implied.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action. It includes all essential details without redundancy, though a slight split into two sentences could improve readability. It remains concise and effective.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return values (total_weight, contribution_count, merkle_path, axis_root, full signed record) and the null case. It explains the end-to-end verification use case. It doesn't cover all potential error conditions, but given the modest complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has full (100%) description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only confirming the role of record and contributor_did. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ("Build") and a specific resource ("contributor-query response"). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the exact input (signed SettlementRecord and contributor DID) and output (per-axis fields plus the signed record), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides a clear context: use this when you have a signed SettlementRecord and need a contributor's share verification data. It explains the output and the null case, which guides the agent on when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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