Query Contributions (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully specified structurally. The description's only added behavioral fact is deprecation status, which is useful but thin — no pagination, result limits, or auth/permission requirements are disclosed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the deprecation notice front-loaded in brackets, which is the right ordering for a dead-end tool. It wastes almost nothing, though the bracketed directive and the purpose sentence could be separated more cleanly.

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 5-parameter query tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition supplies only a destination for migration and a vague resource label. It tells the agent where to go instead of how this tool behaves, leaving the actual invocation surface undocumented.

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?

There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and none are required, yet the description explains none of them. An agent cannot tell what agentId, purpose, principalId, minAccessCount, or sourceReceiptId filter on, and no default or combination behavior is implied.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Query the data contribution ledger"), which is clearly more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from near-siblings like aps_build_contributor_query or get_evidence, so an agent must guess at boundaries from the name alone.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent NOT to use this tool and points at a REST/gateway replacement, which is genuine routing guidance. It still gives no positive condition for when this MCP tool is still the right call, so the guidance is one-sided.

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