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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: it is a 'PAID trust read' with the same pricing policy as GET /check. It explains how the payment challenge works, how to retry with payment in metadata or as a parameter, and the free soft-launch period. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could be slightly more concise about payment details.

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 front-loaded with a clear directive, which is good. However, it is verbose, especially in the payment explanation and the output fields list. Some sentences (e.g., 'Free while the service is in soft-launch') could be folded into a parenthetical or removed without loss. The example at the end is helpful but adds length.

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 presence of an output schema and no nested objects, the description need not explain the return structure. It nonetheless lists the output fields, which is helpful but redundant. It covers the key behavioral aspects (paid, payment flow, free period) and usage cues, making it fairly complete for a tool with 3 params and an output schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the crucial 'capability' parameter with an example ('fact-check') and clarifies the x402_payment parameter (pass as meta key or parameter, or use api_key). It does not detail api_key semantics beyond 'SANDBOX credits', but the example and usage context provide enough value above the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: to vet a capability and return the best-evidenced agent with verdict details. The verb 'vet' and resource 'capability' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like guild_search and guild_risk_score by explicitly mentioning them for finer control.

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 instructs to 'START HERE' when deciding which agent to hire, which provides strong usage guidance among the many guild_* siblings. It also tells the agent to read estimate and confidence together and apply a risk threshold. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternative scenarios for sibling tools beyond a brief mention.

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