guild_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that this is a PAID trust read, explains the x402 payment challenge, the retry mechanism, the api_key sandbox path, and the soft-launch free period. It also advises interpreting estimate and confidence together and applying a risk threshold, which is behavioral guidance. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured: it starts with a 'START HERE' imperative, breaks down what it returns, explains payment in a dedicated section, and ends with a concrete example. Each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, payment, and alternative routing. The example grounds the abstract in a concrete call. No fluff.

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 tool's complexity—payment protocol, multiple output fields, and alternatives—the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return object fields (capability, best_agent, verdict, shortlist, proof, etc.), the payment challenge and retry, the api_key path, and points to sibling tools for finer control. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still names the key fields. An agent can confidently call this tool correctly.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: capability is illustrated with an example, x402_payment is described as an alternative to request metadata, and api_key is explained as an option for sandbox credits. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining how to pass the payment and the trade-offs between options.

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: 'vet a capability before you delegate' and lists the specific outputs (best agent, verdict, shortlist, proof, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'vet' and resource 'capability', and differentiates from siblings by naming guild_search / guild_risk_score for finer control. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'START HERE when asking which agent should I hire' and provides the condition for using alternatives ('Use guild_search / guild_risk_score for finer control'). It also explains payment prerequisites, retry logic, and the api_key option for sandbox credits. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with explicit alternatives.

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