guild_best_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a paid trust read, explains the x402 payment flow, notes it may return null, and provides the result shape. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but 'trust read' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 mostly focused and front-loaded with the core use case, followed by payment details and an example. The payment information is repeated a bit, but it is important context and the structure remains understandable and reasonably concise.

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 gives a good overview of the return value and payment behavior, but lacks detail on parameter semantics, especially min_trust and api_key. It also does not mention possible error cases or how the payment fallback interacts with the api_key parameter. Overall it is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no schema descriptions and no 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only implicitly references 'capability' and 'x402_payment'. The 'min_trust' and 'api_key' parameters are not explained at all, and the exact role of 'x402_payment' is only partially covered. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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: returning the single safest agent to delegate a given capability to, and explicitly frames it as answering 'which agent should I hire'. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like guild_search and guild_risk_score.

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 usage direction: 'Use when asking which agent should I hire for this capability?' and 'Call this first, before hiring or delegating.' It also explains the payment behavior and the null result when no agent qualifies, giving clear guidance on when and how to invoke it.

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