query_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but there is no confirmation of safety, idempotency, or side effects. The term 'ledger' hints at a log, but the description does not explain what happens when querying, e.g., whether it returns records or aggregates.

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 short, front-loading the deprecation notice and then stating the purpose. It is minimally verbose, but the single sentence format could be improved by separating the deprecation into an annotation or structured field. The current format works but is not optimally clear.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter defaults, or when this tool should be chosen over sibling tools like aps_build_contributor_query. The deprecation notice is the only contextual hint.

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 adds no parameter meanings beyond the bare parameter names. An agent would not understand the purpose or constraints of 'minAccessCount' or how 'principalId' relates to the ledger 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 states 'Query the data contribution ledger', providing a verb+resource pair that indicates the tool's function. However, the deprecation notice adds confusion and does not help distinguish it from sibling tools like aps_build_contributor_query, which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The deprecation notice suggests using a REST API instead, but does not reference any sibling tools on the same server. An AI agent would not know if this tool is still preferred for certain scenarios.

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