aps_build_contributor_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the null return for no share, and explains the output structure. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but the tool appears read-only. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Two sentences: first covers purpose and outputs, second covers the null edge case. No wasted words, logically front-loaded.

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 (3 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and a null case. It could benefit from a usage example, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by summarizing the inputs (signed SettlementRecord, contributor DID) and clarifying that gateway_jwks is advisory not part of signed material. This reinforces the schema descriptions.

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 'Build a contributor-query response' and specifies the exact outputs (per-axis data plus signed record). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on verification for a third party, which is unique among APS tools.

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 clear context: given a signed SettlementRecord and contributor DID, it builds a verification response. It explains the use case (end-to-end verification without trusting gateway). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives like query_contributions.

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