guild_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that results reflect claimed versus observed data and that these are never merged, and it notes no API key is required. However, it omits potential side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or data freshness details beyond a single measurement date.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the example is useful, but the statistical sentence about 92.9% and 33.9% adds peripheral context that is not necessary for invoking the tool. The structure is acceptable but not maximally tight.

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 high-level picture of the return concept but lacks parameter explanations, pagination or limit behavior, error scenarios, and any concrete output schema details. Given that the output schema is not shown either, an agent would likely need additional information to use the tool reliably.

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 zero descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not compensate. The example suggests 'query' is a search string, but 'limit' and the exact query semantics are never explained, leaving the agent without enough information to pass parameters correctly.

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 searches the public trust index of agent endpoints and explains the core claimed-vs-observed distinction. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like guild_search, guild_check, or guild_best_agent, so an agent may struggle to choose among them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools. The example query provides a minor hint, but there is no mention of appropriate use cases, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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