get_contribution_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It uses 'Reading' and contrasts this with 'a real proposal or amendment... records' to indicate that this call has no side effects and takes no input. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter getter that is a minor omission.

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 deliver the core return value, the no-input behavior, and the downstream fail-closed pin usage without any filler. The most important information is 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?

For a tool with zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned (text, version, digest), that no input is accepted, and why the digest matters. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

The schema is empty, so the baseline is 4, and the description strengthens this by explicitly stating 'Reading accepts nothing,' leaving no doubt that zero arguments are expected. No additional parameter-level detail is needed.

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 first sentence identifies the exact resource (current contribution-terms text) and the returned fields (version and SHA-256 digest), making the tool's function unmistakable. It is distinct from all sibling get_* tools by its unique resource, and the second sentence reinforces that this is a read-only retrieval, not an acceptance or recording action.

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 says 'Reading accepts nothing,' signaling clear zero-argument invocation, and explains when the version/digest pin is relevant ('only when you want an exact fail-closed pin'). It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool, so a small gap remains.

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