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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only verified officer uploads count, a figure becomes public after two officers agree, characters can opt out and be excluded, and missing data is reported explicitly. This is substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 most important information is front-loaded, and most sentences carry useful behavioral detail. It is slightly long and could be tightened, but it avoids repetition and remains focused.

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 a simple two-parameter schema, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the key privacy, aggregation, opt-out, and empty-result behaviors an agent needs. It is complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% for the two required parameters, guildName and realm, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no format or syntax details for those parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens by naming the specific resource and its contents (roster, bosses killed, loot, attendance, average item level), and it distinguishes the scope by stating it does not look up other players or guilds. An agent can identify this as a guild-publication board rather than a general lookup.

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 provides clear context and a boundary condition: it does not look up other players or guilds, and an unpublished guild yields an empty board. However, it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool for those excluded cases.

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