guild_attest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, the rating scale, and the return format ({id, verified}). However, it does not state whether this is a write operation, whether it is reversible, or any side effects on the trust graph. Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a compact example and return format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main usage, authentication, rating scale, and return format. Given an output schema exists, it need not detail return values further. The only gap is the unexplained task_id parameter and lack of error conditions, but for a simple attestation tool this is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains rating (0..1), issuer_api_key (from guild_register), and provides an example with subject_id and capability. It omits task_id, which has a default but no explanation. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond 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 vouch for or warn about work another agent did, with a rating. The verb 'vouch' and resource 'work' are specific, and the trust graph context explains why it matters. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when vouching for or warning about another agent's work. It also specifies the authentication requirement (issuer_api_key from guild_register) and gives a concrete example. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well implied.

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