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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: the required guild.read scope, the output fields, and the inline/idMap structure. This goes beyond annotations to explain authentication needs and output format.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose/scope, required scope, and output handling guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Complete for a read-only listing tool: purpose, auth requirement, output fields, and usage notes are all covered. With an output schema present and robust annotations, the description fills all necessary gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does enhance understanding of the returned data (e.g., idMap), but that falls under output semantics.

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 states a specific action ('List the guilds the current user belongs to') with clear output details (role, member count, campaign count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guild or list_guild_members by focusing on the current user's guild memberships.

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 gives explicit downstream usage guidance: use the returned guildId verbatim for other tools and refer to guilds by name in prose. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_guild, but the scope 'current user belongs to' makes the intended use clear.

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