guild_preflight

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires no key, makes one call, is not cached, and returns 'unknowns' for checks it could not perform. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe side effects, but 'preflight' and 'before payment' strongly imply no state change or payment.

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 well structured with paragraphs and an example, but it is somewhat verbose. The statistical claims and repeated warning about payment timing add context but could be trimmed without losing the core instructions.

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 enough context for an agent to decide when and why to call the tool, including how unknowns are handled and why live checks matter. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable.

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 only defines a required url string with no property description, and the description does not explicitly define the parameter. It compensates partially with the example guild_preflight(url="https://some-agent.example/a2a"), which implies url is the agent endpoint, but a direct explanation would be clearer.

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 that this tool is a live preflight check to run before delegating to or paying an agent endpoint, and explains that it separates claimed capabilities from proven ones. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like guild_preflight_deep or guild_check, but 'one call' and 'before payment' narrow its role.

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?

It explicitly says to run this before delegating or paying, and warns that x402 transfers are irreversible, so the check must happen before payment. It also notes that the result is live rather than cached, which helps the agent know when to rely on it.

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