query_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Query', which implies a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or deprecation consequences (e.g., whether it still works or returns errors). The deprecation notice is the only behavioral insight.

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 very brief, which is concise, but it is under-informative. The deprecation notice is front-loaded and clear, yet the lack of any functional or parameter detail makes it feel truncated rather than intentionally concise.

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 the tool has 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context about how to use the tool effectively. It only gives a bare hint of its function, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (agentId, purpose, principalId, minAccessCount, sourceReceiptId). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without clues on how to construct a valid query.

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 identifies the action ('Query') and the resource ('data contribution ledger'), which distinguishes it from other query tools like list_profiles or resolve_lineage. The deprecation notice is separate but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 explicitly states the tool is deprecated and directs the user to an alternative (gateway.aeoess.com REST API). This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not elaborate on when the tool might still be used or explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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